BBC reception...?
Mark
problems with other BBC channels too...)
Is this related to the change of satellite, and what can I do about it???
I've tries resetting the box to no avail.
Thanks in advance.
Mark
Mark
"Mark" <someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5tRya.238$5f1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
marcb
@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk:
You're not the only one. I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of those blamed
by angry Celtic fans. A good lesson in not ditching your terrestrial
aerial.
M.
QrizB
<media group xpost snipped, as it's a tech problem>
Whereabouts in the world is the dish you're using, and what size is
it?
--
QrizB
I sound like I know what I'm talking about, but don't
be fooled.
Mark
"QrizB" <Qr...@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:3ecbe6db...@text.news.ntlworld.com...
Mark
"marcb" <mapsn...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9382DE7AD823Fm...@194.117.133.134...
HJK
old transponder at 11720H is signalled with
the Astra 2D frequency 10773H so even adding the BBC channels as other
channels wont help as the Digibox
will read and use frequency 10773H after its tuned to 11720H .
"Mark" <someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5tRya.238$5f1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
bob
Yes not getting *any* BBC channels.
other stuff is OK.
can anyone fill us in about the satalite changes ?
Dont have an aeriel where I am ! ;--)
Bob.
On Wed, 21 May 2003 20:52:16 GMT, marcb <mapsn...@compuserve.com>
wrote:
Mark
"HJK" <nos...@online.no> wrote in message
news:FjSya.411$Hb....@news4.e.nsc.no...
Nick Jeffery
> You're not the only one. I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of those blamed
> by angry Celtic fans. A good lesson in not ditching your terrestrial
> aerial.
It was an awful, awful, game.
Celtic didn't deserve to win, IMHO. Until the last half of extra time,
when Porto played dirtier than a team of Maradonnas.
--
Nick Jeffery.
QrizB
<someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>So does that mean no-one is recieving BBC then? Or can I do something???
Seeing as how no-one else has answered you, BBCs 1 through 4 are fine
for me.
West Berks, Sky minidish, FTV card, Amstrad DRX300 model 7.Bq.56, ver
4F0501, OS 1.2S4Bq, EPG 3.1a.6.
Gary Witham
Same with me, All BBC channels not responding for 2 days now.
I am on the edge of the 2D footprint with a 60 cm Dish.. I was going out
today to get a 90cm or a 1m but since you are in Essex and should have no
problem with a 60 cm. I`ll wait a bit and see what happens.
All other channels are ok
Let me know if reception returns for you please.
Gary
"Mark" <someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5tRya.238$5f1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Dave Fawthrop
<someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
| I have not been able to recieve BBC1 and BBC2 tonight (I guess there are
| problems with other BBC channels too...)
Both OK on $ky here in Yorkshire, standard $ky dish.
We usually watch analogue.
Dave F
Salvador Freemanson
<someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>So does that mean no-one is recieving BBC then? Or can I do something???
Works fine here, Paris, 80 cm
Dave Fawthrop
<someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Your contract to recieve Satellite programs is with *$ky*, not the Beeb.
Complain long, loud, and in writing, at $ky.
Should be interesting <evil grin>.
Have your neighbours got the same problem?
It may be that your dish needs adjusting slightly for the Astra 2D.
Dave F
Mark Carver
> So does that mean no-one is recieving BBC then? Or can I do
> something???
Can you receive ITV on Ch 103 ? If not then your box and/or LNB
is not receiving low band channels. Both ITV and BBC now use the Astra 2D
satellite, which employs a lower set of frequencies. In order the receive low
band, your box sends a signal to the LNB. In some cases either the LNB does not
respond to the signal, or the box does not send it. You will need to swap
your box with a friend's to isolate the problem.
If you can get ITV, then it's a bit puzzling. It could be dish alignment.
In either case you need to get whoever installed the system back to fix the problem.
You should have no problems whatsoever receiving 2D at your location.
(LNB is the device fitted to your dish, that actually receives the signals)
Jomtien
>> I have not been able to recieve BBC1 and BBC2 tonight (I guess there are
>> problems with other BBC channels too...)
>
>Forgot to mention, I'm in the UK, South East Essex!
What error message do you get?
I suspect that your dish is misaligned or otherwise faulty.
--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/4f9c
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://www.logofreetv.org.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)
Michael
> old transponder at 11720H is signalled with
> the Astra 2D frequency 10773H so even adding the BBC channels as other
> channels wont help as the Digibox
> will read and use frequency 10773H after its tuned to 11720H .
Hi
Is there any way to bypass this signaling and be able to watch BBC on
11720 via Other Channels?
Mike P.
Philomena
>On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:35:42 +0100, "Mark"
><someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>| I have not been able to recieve BBC1 and BBC2 tonight (I guess there are
>| problems with other BBC channels too...)
>|
>| Is this related to the change of satellite, and what can I do about it???
>| I've tries resetting the box to no avail.
>
>Your contract to recieve Satellite programs is with *$ky*, not the Beeb.
That can't be correct. If he has a Sky subscription then he might have
a contract to receive the channels he subscribes to, but not FTA or FTV
channels.
>Complain long, loud, and in writing, at $ky.
>Should be interesting <evil grin>.
If you think "It's nothing to do with us" is interesting. :-)
Gav
> old transponder at 11720H is signalled with
> the Astra 2D frequency 10773H so even adding the BBC channels as other
> channels wont help as the Digibox
> will read and use frequency 10773H after its tuned to 11720H .
I figured they must have moved to 2D since a couple of days ago my
BBC1 started acting like my ITV (sometimes not 'tuning in' when I
selected it). I find if I try a few times I usually 'lock on'. (I
live in Switzerland).
Hmmm, I guess it's time to bite the bullet and align my dish
properly. Up until now skittish ITV reception wasn't enough of a
reason to fiddle with an essentially working setup, but since I watch
quite a lot of BBC it's going to be worth doing it right.
Does anyone know if they're broadcasting 'in the clear' yet or are
they still using Sky's encryption system?
Gav
Mark Carver
> I figured they must have moved to 2D since a couple of days ago my
> BBC1 started acting like my ITV (sometimes not 'tuning in' when I
> selected it). I find if I try a few times I usually 'lock on'. (I
> live in Switzerland).
>
> Hmmm, I guess it's time to bite the bullet and align my dish
> properly. Up until now skittish ITV reception wasn't enough of a
> reason to fiddle with an essentially working setup, but since I watch
> quite a lot of BBC it's going to be worth doing it right.
>
> Does anyone know if they're broadcasting 'in the clear' yet or are
> they still using Sky's encryption system?
Still encrypted. Latest news is they go 'in the clear' on July 14th, pending
the results of the EPG entry issue that the ITC are to adjudicate on at the
end of June.
Dave Fawthrop
| On Thu, 22 May 2003 07:42:24 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| >On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:35:42 +0100, "Mark"
| ><someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
| >
| >| I have not been able to recieve BBC1 and BBC2 tonight (I guess there are
| >| problems with other BBC channels too...)
| >|
| >| Is this related to the change of satellite, and what can I do about it???
| >| I've tries resetting the box to no avail.
| >
| >Your contract to recieve Satellite programs is with *$ky*, not the Beeb.
|
| That can't be correct. If he has a Sky subscription then he might have
| a contract to receive the channels he subscribes to, but not FTA or FTV
| channels.
Should have added "If $ky provided and installed your dish".
One has to be *so* careful on usenet :-(
|
| >Complain long, loud, and in writing, at $ky.
| >Should be interesting <evil grin>.
|
| If you think "It's nothing to do with us" is interesting. :-)
If, they provided and installed and were paid for the whole caboodle, as
they did for most people, and the BBC channels were on the advertising and
therefor part of the contract, problems are strictly Sky's responsibility.
Dave F
|
Philomena
>On Thu, 22 May 2003 08:43:38 GMT, m...@privacy.net (Philomena) wrote:
>
>| On Thu, 22 May 2003 07:42:24 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
>|
>| >Your contract to recieve Satellite programs is with *$ky*, not the Beeb.
>|
>| That can't be correct. If he has a Sky subscription then he might have
>| a contract to receive the channels he subscribes to, but not FTA or FTV
>| channels.
>
>Should have added "If $ky provided and installed your dish".
>One has to be *so* careful on usenet :-(
If any of Sky's contracts guarantee reception of channels they have no
control over, such as the BBC, then they are stupider than I think they
are. That would be like an aerial installer or tv retailer accepting
responsibility if someone can't get Channel 5 on terrestrial analogue..
>|
>| >Complain long, loud, and in writing, at $ky.
>| >Should be interesting <evil grin>.
>|
>| If you think "It's nothing to do with us" is interesting. :-)
>
>If, they provided and installed and were paid for the whole caboodle, as
>they did for most people, and the BBC channels were on the advertising and
>therefor part of the contract, problems are strictly Sky's responsibility.
From the Sky "free equipment" t&c,
https://buy.sky.com/New/openTsAndCsForSubscriptionPackagePopup.do?subscriptionPackageId=95#free_tandc
"
3. Channels and Programming
[..]
(c) Many Channels that we provide are supplied by other broadcasters and
their availability is outside our control."
Sums it up nicely in a single sentence.
Mark
news:bahroj$sf4p8$1...@ID-75131.news.dfncis.de...
> Mark wrote:
> > So does that mean no-one is recieving BBC then? Or can I do
> > something???
>
> Can you receive ITV on Ch 103 ?
Yes I can get ITV, in fact all channels except BBC (I've tested 1, 2, 3, 4,
CBBC)
> If not then your box and/or LNB
> is not receiving low band channels. Both ITV and BBC now use the Astra 2D
> satellite, which employs a lower set of frequencies. In order the receive
low
> band, your box sends a signal to the LNB. In some cases either the LNB
does not
> respond to the signal, or the box does not send it. You will need to swap
> your box with a friend's to isolate the problem.
>
> If you can get ITV, then it's a bit puzzling. It could be dish alignment.
>
> In either case you need to get whoever installed the system back to fix
the problem.
>
> You should have no problems whatsoever receiving 2D at your location.
>
> (LNB is the device fitted to your dish, that actually receives the
signals)
The system worked fine until yesterday evening, so I assumed it was to do
with the new satellite they are using...?
Mark
itself or something???
"Gary Witham" <noe...@home.plz> wrote in message
news:baho83$9a7$1...@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
Mark Carver
>
> The system worked fine until yesterday evening, so I assumed it was
> to do with the new satellite they are using...?
Yes, BBC 1, 2, 3, and 4 moved (as far as your Sky Box is concerned) yesterday
morning (21 May). BBC Radio, and Welsh and Scottish BBC 1/2 did the same this morning.
You might be able to restore the channels by manually adding to 'Other Channels' by entering:-
11720H SR 27.5 FEC 2/3
11798H SR 27.5 FEC 2/3
Details on this procedure are in here:-
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/4f9c
But some people have reported that the signals are flagged with a code that immediately
dumps you back onto the new satellite. :-(
In any case, transmissions could cease from the old satellite any day, and probably
before the end of May.
As you are getting ITV, I suspect it is your dish alignment that needs a tweak.
If the system was installed less than a year ago, get Sky or whoever fitted it back
under warranty. If it's older than that, get a local aerial or satellite installer to come
and realign it.
Mark
sub from our old address, so probably no luck on Sky being any use at all.
I've always thought our dish looked a bit 'flat' - pointing too low in the
sky...maybe thats the problem!
"Mark Carver" <markc...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:bairfq$7ca2$1...@ID-75131.news.dfncis.de...
Mark Carver
> So is this just about dish alignment, or should my digibox have
> retuned itself or something???
Actually, further to my other reply I've just made to you, first try re-setting
the box. Just remove the mains input for a few seconds, and allow it to reboot.
Mark
"Mark Carver" <markc...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:bairpn$83hg$1...@ID-75131.news.dfncis.de...
Mark
BBC1!
My girlfriend just got on the phone to the BBC number...they are saying
there are 'problems' since the satellite changeover in some areas, which
should be resolved in the next 24 hours.
Apparently, they have had 'urgent talks with Sky' this morning...whatever
that means!
P.S. This is paraphrased from what GF said they said...I hate talking to
people on these 'help' desks so got her to do it ;)
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:BAF2B975...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> In article <Wp6za.10952$eq2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> You've clearly got a dish alignment problem.
>
>
Laughing Mushrooms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
My various obscure mumblings and bits can be found at:-
QrizB
>On Thu, 22 May 2003 07:42:24 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
>
>If you think "It's nothing to do with us" is interesting. :-)
Hmm, puts me in mind of an old "Not the 9 O'Clock News" sketch ...
tony lees
Mark
Same here in Barnet, N London - no BBC channels for a couple of days now.
Martyn Johnson
"Mark" <someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
...
>I've always thought our dish looked a bit 'flat' - pointing too low in the
>sky...maybe thats the problem!
They do. Because the LNB is well below the central axis of the dish, it is
actualy "looking" well above it.
Your problem does seem odd. It could still be a low band problem. I once had
something a bit similar - some low band channels worked, some didn't, others
were intermittent depending on what had been selected before. The receiver
worked perfectly when connected to a different dish.
The (independent) installer needed an awful lot of persuasion, but eventually
they agreed to change the LNB and I haven't had a problem since.
--
Martyn Johnson ma...@cl.cam.ac.uk
University of Cambridge Computer Lab
Cambridge UK
chris
Monday.
The help line is blaming the BBC for going "low band" the BBC are
blaming Astra for a crap satatlite...meanwhile I can't get chennels I
pay for.
Dont sky have some kind of legal obligation to ensure BBC is
broadcast?
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------
gavs_...@swissonline.ch (Gav) wrote in message news:<3bf1057d.03052...@posting.google.com>...
Hiram Hackenbacker
>have not been able to recieve and BBC channel on sky digital sinc
>Monday.
>
>The help line is blaming the BBC for going "low band" the BBC are
>blaming Astra for a crap satatlite...meanwhile I can't get chennels I
>pay for.
Who at the BBC told you it was a "crap sat"?
>Dont sky have some kind of legal obligation to ensure BBC is
>broadcast?
The BBC are broadcasting, you are just not receiving.
--
Hiram Hackenbacker
Philomena
>On Thu, 22 May 2003 08:43:38 GMT, m...@privacy.net (Philomena) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 May 2003 07:42:24 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
>>
>>If you think "It's nothing to do with us" is interesting. :-)
>
>Hmm, puts me in mind of an old "Not the 9 O'Clock News" sketch ...
Yes?
QrizB
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <3ecd2f25...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
>m...@privacy.net (Philomena) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 May 2003 17:32:35 GMT, QrizB wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 22 May 2003 08:43:38 GMT, m...@privacy.net (Philomena) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 22 May 2003 07:42:24 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
>> >>
>> >>If you think "It's nothing to do with us" is interesting. :-)
>> >
>> >Hmm, puts me in mind of an old "Not the 9 O'Clock News" sketch ...
>>
>> Yes?
>
>It was a spoof "That's Life" sketch.
Despite 20 minutes Googling, I can't find you a transcript. Sorry.
Although it made it into Medway Council's debating chamber:
http://www.horsted.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/speeches/motion1.html
marcb
news:Wp6za.10952$eq2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk:
Acorrding to a BBC recorded message, which is clearly experiencing a lot
of calls on this, the procedure is:
1 Switch between 103/4 and back (didn't work for me)
2.Or reboot (ditto)
3 If that fails it's dish realignment.
I expect an awful lot of people are affected by this and installers have
a little windfall on their hands.
M.
Philomena
I think I get the gist. <g>
Jomtien
>Dont sky have some kind of legal obligation to ensure BBC is
>broadcast?
No, sadly.
--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/4f9c
K
>chris wrote:
>
>>Dont sky have some kind of legal obligation to ensure BBC is
>>broadcast?
>
>No, sadly.
Why sadly?
Tassos Anastassiades
of days... They were working fine until then, with a 1.4m dish & a
Panasonic DSB 30 receiver. Does anyone know if they have moved to the
other ASTRA beam? I thought the move was postponed until July....
Any clues would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Tassos
Gary Witham
Check out the footprint of 2D
http://www.astra.lu/satellites/beam/beamByXpr.php?pos=2&sat=ASTRA+2D&xpr=41,+42,+43,+44,+45,+46,+47,+48,+49,+50,+51,+52,+53,+54,+55,+56
(make sure this link is on one line)
Im in the Netherlands and Im just on the edge
Gary
"Tassos Anastassiades" <tas...@anemos.com> wrote in message
news:7d2827bb.03052...@posting.google.com...
Ant
>have not been able to recieve and BBC channel on sky digital sinc
>Monday.
>
>The help line is blaming the BBC for going "low band" the BBC are
>blaming Astra for a crap satatlite...meanwhile I can't get chennels I
>pay for.
>
>Dont sky have some kind of legal obligation to ensure BBC is
>broadcast?
It's nothing to do with Sky. It's down to the BBC. Remember, they've
moved to another weaker satellite so that they can give Sky the finger
and show how important they are. Of course, it turns out that, as
always, it's licence-fee payers who lose out in the end. And the
responsibility for that lies with the BBC - nobody else.
David Goodman
<someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I have not been able to recieve BBC1 and BBC2 tonight (I guess there are
>problems with other BBC channels too...)
>
>Is this related to the change of satellite, and what can I do about it???
>I've tries resetting the box to no avail.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
Me too!
Just phoned Sky.
As my installation is less than 12 months old, they are arranging for
my dish to be realligned.
My signal strength and quality are both at 50%, but this is apparently
too low for the 'low power' of the new BBC transmission according to
Sky.
Looks like being the last installation of the day when it was
installed was a bodge job....
Regards,
Jomtien
>>>Dont sky have some kind of legal obligation to ensure BBC is
>>>broadcast?
>>
>>No, sadly.
>
>Why sadly?
Because Sky should have some sort of legal obligation to ensure that
the BBC and all other FTA/FTV channels are received by all users of
Sky digiboxes at no cost to the broadcaster for encryption or EPG
services.
Jomtien
>It's nothing to do with Sky. It's down to the BBC. Remember, they've
>moved to another weaker satellite so that they can give Sky the finger
>and show how important they are. Of course, it turns out that, as
>always, it's licence-fee payers who lose out in the end. And the
>responsibility for that lies with the BBC - nobody else.
Not at all. The fault lies fairly and squarely with Sky for attempting
to abuse their UK encryption monopoly by charging the BBC an absurd
£17million per year.
Jomtien
>My signal strength and quality are both at 50%, but this is apparently
>too low for the 'low power' of the new BBC transmission according to
>Sky.
I suspect that the skew needs tweaking.
Giuseppe Sottotetti
"Jomtien" <jom...@the.beach> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:tgttcv0evni73iq4d...@4ax.com...
> Ant wrote:
>
> >It's nothing to do with Sky. It's down to the BBC.
>
> to abuse their UK encryption monopoly by charging the BBC an absurd
> £17million per year.
>
to everything. Without rules you end up with a monopoly and the consumer is
the loser.
--
Giuseppe Sottotetti
gso...@libero.it
Gary Witham
My signal/strength is 75% plus (past the 2 on the network id)
and i still dont get any BBC channels
btw skew is about 8 degrees
still nothing
I was thinking that it must be the size of my dish (60cm) because im now on
the edge of 2D footprint but i cant understand that there are also so many
problems in the UK.
Still waiting :((
"Jomtien" <jom...@the.beach> wrote in message
news:3httcvcorqkm7q59i...@4ax.com...
Gary Witham
sorry.. i didnt mean that the skew idea was BS i meant the installers
excuse in the other post.
havnt got my glasses on ;)
"Jomtien" <jom...@the.beach> wrote in message
news:3httcvcorqkm7q59i...@4ax.com...
marcb
> That is pure BS!!
> My signal/strength is 75% plus (past the 2 on the network id)
> and i still dont get any BBC channels
>
> btw skew is about 8 degrees
> still nothing
>
> I was thinking that it must be the size of my dish (60cm) because im
> now on the edge of 2D footprint but i cant understand that there are
> also so many problems in the UK.
>
> Still waiting :((
>
My wife called Sky yesterday - they now say it's not the dish but 'the box
needs retuning'.
What does this entail and can I do it?
Using a two year old Grundig box, mini-dish, central London.
Marc
Duck
Ireland - reading above posts this doesn't seem to be a geographical
problem. Phoned $ky yesterday and she said that an engineer would have to
call with me - for Ł65, so said no thanks. Any advice on a fix would be
gratefully received!
"Gary Witham" <noe...@home.plz> wrote in message
news:ban5jp$84d$1...@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
Ant
>Not at all. The fault lies fairly and squarely with Sky for attempting
>to abuse their UK encryption monopoly by charging the BBC an absurd
>£17million per year.
As the BBC didn't even attempt to negotiate with Sky we'll never know
what they would have charged them, would we?
Ant
>Because Sky should have some sort of legal obligation to ensure that
>the BBC and all other FTA/FTV channels are received by all users of
>Sky digiboxes at no cost to the broadcaster for encryption or EPG
>services.
Why should the richest and mostly highly-funded channels in the
country be given stuff for free? If the other channels can afford it,
I'm sure that they can.
Ant
<paulbail...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Have been suffering this same problem this week, living in Northern
>Ireland - reading above posts this doesn't seem to be a geographical
>problem. Phoned $ky yesterday and she said that an engineer would have to
>call with me - for £65, so said no thanks. Any advice on a fix would be
>gratefully received!
Write to the BBC and tell them that since they've decided to move to a
lower powered satellite you will be unable to watch them from now on.
They'll probably send someone round themselves. :-)
chris
After spending forever on the phone to Sky Technical (two words that
should never go together)..I got through 3 levels of technical 'help'
and made a point that no information exists on the web site, viewing
information channels or on the pre recorded helpline and that no
notice was given along with the fact that the first level of customer
service could have been told the problem if it comes down to a dish
realignment and saved me going on hold forever.
The final idea seems to be that if your dish was not perfectly aligned
or has blown off a little over time, your shafted....
However..after much pushing Sky has given me one month credit (£18.99)
on my account and I have lined up a local installer to tweek the dish
in a few days.
An interesting point is that the installer has talked to sky and they
have recommended he wait until Wednesday of next week before
realigning any dishes.
The moral of the story..shout and moan and ask to talk to the
supervisor..then ask for a credit.
The british public dont complain too much, imagine if this had
happened in the US, there would be law suits flying everywere.
Chris
Chris
"Duck" <paulbail...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<banmpu$1lp1i$1...@ID-166610.news.dfncis.de>...
> Have been suffering this same problem this week, living in Northern
> Ireland - reading above posts this doesn't seem to be a geographical
> problem. Phoned $ky yesterday and she said that an engineer would have to
> call with me - for £65, so said no thanks. Any advice on a fix would be
Electric Frog
"chris" <loo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:14228f2.03052...@posting.google.com...
> I posted my problem as entry no19 on the 22nd....
>
> After spending forever on the phone to Sky Technical (two words that
> should never go together)..I got through 3 levels of technical 'help'
> and made a point that no information exists on the web site, viewing
> information channels or on the pre recorded helpline and that no
> notice was given along with the fact that the first level of customer
> service could have been told the problem if it comes down to a dish
> realignment and saved me going on hold forever.
>
> The final idea seems to be that if your dish was not perfectly aligned
> or has blown off a little over time, your shafted....
>
> However..after much pushing Sky has given me one month credit (£18.99)
> on my account and I have lined up a local installer to tweek the dish
> in a few days.
>
> An interesting point is that the installer has talked to sky and they
> have recommended he wait until Wednesday of next week before
> realigning any dishes.
>
> The moral of the story..shout and moan and ask to talk to the
> supervisor..then ask for a credit.
>
> The british public dont complain too much, imagine if this had
> happened in the US, there would be law suits flying everywere.
>
As someone living in the US I can say it happens frequently, it's not
unusual to get home and find the cable is out yet again and thus begins the
'mare of phoning up the cable company, if you're lucky it'll be back on that
night and you find one of your neighbours has tried to access free cable and
took out the whole junction box.
And don't bother with the law suit, the contract makes it very clear that
you're not guaranteed a signal
Jomtien
>>Because Sky should have some sort of legal obligation to ensure that
>>the BBC and all other FTA/FTV channels are received by all users of
>>Sky digiboxes at no cost to the broadcaster for encryption or EPG
>>services.
>
>Why should the richest and mostly highly-funded channels in the
>country be given stuff for free?
> If the other channels can afford it,
>I'm sure that they can.
The whole point is that none of them should have to afford it. We've
already seen the extent to which Sky's charges for encryption services
are absurdly overpriced when compared with the fees charged in similar
circumstances overseas.
Jomtien
>>Not at all. The fault lies fairly and squarely with Sky for attempting
>>to abuse their UK encryption monopoly by charging the BBC an absurd
>>£17million per year.
>
>As the BBC didn't even attempt to negotiate with Sky we'll never know
>what they would have charged them, would we?
The fee that they have been paying for the last 3 years certainly was
negotiated at the time. I can understand Dyke not wanting to talk to
Sky now though: I wouldn't want to talk to them either in his
position.
The point is that even the original, lower, negotiated fee was totally
over the top. All these figures really are just plain silly.
Roger Branwhite
I have a Panasonic Sky Box and I have had problems not experienced by other
users in the past that are Panasonic Box Specific.
I am having the BBC problem but can "surprise" my box into displaying BBC1
by jumping to it from for example SKY1.
I key in 106 to jump to SKY1 and then 101 to jump to BBC1. Hey presto it
works but to go up or down through the channels still causes a problem.
This suggests to me that my problem is software and not firmware since I can
receive a signal sometimes.
Thanks,
Roger B.
"Mark" <someone...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zqRya.220$5f1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Ant
>The whole point is that none of them should have to afford it. We've
>already seen the extent to which Sky's charges for encryption services
>are absurdly overpriced when compared with the fees charged in similar
>circumstances overseas.
No, we've seen claims which don't compare like with like. That might
go down well with people who already think that Sky are the bad guys,
because it confirms what they think, but it proves nothing.
Ant
>>>Not at all. The fault lies fairly and squarely with Sky for attempting
>>>to abuse their UK encryption monopoly by charging the BBC an absurd
>>>£17million per year.
>>
>>As the BBC didn't even attempt to negotiate with Sky we'll never know
>>what they would have charged them, would we?
>
>The fee that they have been paying for the last 3 years certainly was
>negotiated at the time.
That doesn't back up your claim that Sky were going to charge the
"absurd" figure.
The BBC and Sky will come to some compromise, I'm quite sure.
Laughing Mushrooms
>go down well with people who already think that Sky are the bad guys,
Sky isn't? So why was Murdoch banned from starting his antics in several other
countries (including Israel) before him and Thatcher decided he could have the
monopoly here?
No other country allows such a monopoly by an individual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
My various obscure mumblings and bits can be found at:-
Ant
wrote:
>(Using those rough figures one might tentatively infer that Sky are
>charging about 6 times the market rate for their encryption
>services.)"
You're still not comparing like with like - the figures charged by Sky
include costs of administration and a certain degree of "paying back
the platform" - all deemed to be fair and reasonable by Oftel.
So I'm afraid you can't just compare a report of a notional figure
that someone MIGHT have been charged (but might not have been - and in
the absence of any negotiation there's no way to know) with an
unrelated earnings figure for one component of a different service
entirely.
Basic stuff, really.
Jomtien
>>The whole point is that none of them should have to afford it. We've
>>already seen the extent to which Sky's charges for encryption services
>>are absurdly overpriced when compared with the fees charged in similar
>>circumstances overseas.
>
>No, we've seen claims which don't compare like with like. That might
>go down well with people who already think that Sky are the bad guys,
>because it confirms what they think, but it proves nothing.
I'd love someone to explain to me exactly what Sky think they are
doing to merit charging the BBC and ITV £17million each per year for
encryption services (not card/subscriber management), and who knows
how much more for C4 and C5.
--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/4f9c
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://www.logofreetv.org.uk/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.cjb.net/
Ant
wrote:
>So now you're saying that after Sky increased the price of their
>encryption services, they weren't actually going to charge their
>customers the new price?!
What increase is that? An increase would affect all broadcasters - yet
the proposed charge for the BBC would have been the same as what ITV
were charged. Doesn't sound like an increase to me.
Don't confuse the BBC's five-year DISCOUNT with a price rise.
>>The BBC and Sky will come to some compromise, I'm quite sure.
>
>We'll have to wait and see. If they do, then it proves Sky can provide
>their encryption services at a lower price and still make a profit
>thus showing it is overpriced in the first place.
Blimey, you want it both ways, don't you. And a compromise doesn't
have to involve a discount, as ITV have shown.
jonphred
"Jomtien" <jom...@the.beach> wrote in message
<snip>
> I'd love someone to explain to me exactly what Sky think they are
> doing to merit charging the BBC and ITV £17million each per year for
> encryption services (not card/subscriber management), and who knows
> how much more for C4 and C5.
>
charging what the traffic will bear. A long-established tenet of
profit-motivated business.
'Merit' or 'cost of supply' do not apply. If the customer regards the
pricing as less than or equal to perceived value to that customer then the
bargain will be struck. Real complications arise when the commodity is an
"essential" (or, at least, highly significant) aspect of the customer's
business.
The UK Government (of whatever hue) apparently still believes that a
monopoly-supplier's inevitable tendency to take advantage of that position
can be curbed by some form of regulation.
What I find confusing is that Governments claim that 'the market knows best'
and that certain matters should be 'left to the marketplace' but then
contradict that "ethos" by appointing regulators to intervene in the
operation of the market. I'm not making a value-judgement here: just
observing an inconsistency.
Cheers!
jill sergent
I can get BBC1 by going to 551 before 101 don't know why, but it works.
Ant
>I'd love someone to explain to me exactly what Sky think they are
>doing to merit charging the BBC and ITV £17million each per year
Building a digital platform which brings those channels into millions
of homes, perhaps?
Ant
wrote:
>And the prices charged by Viaccess for their encryption also include
>"paying back the platform", ie, R&D costs for the Viaccess encryption
>system.
The encryption system is not the platform. Sorry.
>And since the BBC administer their own FTV cards via their own phone
>line, why should Sky be paid for this? It's not like pay channels, who
>use Sky's billing system, computers and CS representatives. The
>"administration costs" are already paid for by the BBC because they do
>it themselves.
Except the BBC pay Sky to handle the billing system, computers, and CS
representatives. Sorry.
>It's well known that you're pretty much the only person on this group
>who refuses to believe the figure that the BBC will save of £85m, even
>though they have stated it themselves, it has been widely reported in
>the press and several people here have calculated it out several
>times.
You'll forgive me if I don't place much store in the rubbish some
people post on usenet. :-)
>Using your logic, if the price of my monthly ADSL subscription went up
>to say £40 and I phoned them up to cancel and refused to negotiate a
>lower price, that "notional figure" of £40 that I would have been
>paying for their service is not to be trusted simply because I refused
>to negotiate, despite the fact that the £40 figure is being quoted
>time and time again in a variety of different newspapers including
>even pro-ADSL ones...
Well this is very interesting but it's not the same thing at all.
Sorry.
>And I suppose these financial newspapers have also got it wrong too?
The very first link you posted indicated that a discount could have
been negotiated, if there had been one.
>And as pointed out in another post, if the price is regulated by
>Oftel, why should they be allowed to negotiate in the first place and
>end up charging different amounts to different channels for the same
>service?
Because the price is not fixed - it is an indicative rate.
Ant
wrote:
>According to Greg Dyke, the new price being asked of the BBC is almost
>2.5x that of the old one:-
>
>I'd certainly call £7m per year jumping to £17m per year, an "increase".
The removal of a discount is not a price increase. Obvious, really.
QrizB
On Mon, 26 May 2003 20:17:32 GMT, A...@0spam.want.no.spam.zzz (Ant)
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2003 11:14:10 +0100, metn41 <met...@dsl.pipex.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And the prices charged by Viaccess for their encryption also include
>>"paying back the platform", ie, R&D costs for the Viaccess encryption
>>system.
>
>The encryption system is not the platform. Sorry.
Granted, but the BBC are being charged for encryption services, noit
for any other part of the "platform".
>>And since the BBC administer their own FTV cards via their own phone
>>line, why should Sky be paid for this? It's not like pay channels, who
>>use Sky's billing system, computers and CS representatives. The
>>"administration costs" are already paid for by the BBC because they do
>>it themselves.
>
>Except the BBC pay Sky to handle the billing system, computers, and CS
>representatives. Sorry.
The BBC don't use Sky's billing system, as they don't issue any bills.
IIRC the BBC contract separately for their call centre too.
--
QrizB
I sound like I know what I'm talking about, but don't
be fooled.
Jomtien
>You're still not comparing like with like - the figures charged by Sky
>include costs of administration and a certain degree of "paying back
>the platform" - all deemed to be fair and reasonable by Oftel.
No, the BBC pay Sky even more money for card management on top of the
encryption fee which is already excessive. And just because Oftel deem
something to be fair doesn't make it so. Oftel are totally in News
Corp's pocket, just as is the government. Neither of them ever does
anything to upset News Corp.
--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/4f9c
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://www.logofreetv.org.uk/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.cjb.net/
Jomtien
>>And the prices charged by Viaccess for their encryption also include
>>"paying back the platform", ie, R&D costs for the Viaccess encryption
>>system.
>
>The encryption system is not the platform. Sorry.
Actually it is. Without the encryption there is no platform as such:
the satellites are owned and operated by SES and Eutelsat, and
broadcasters pay them for carriage. And EPG positions (the only thing
that is part of the platform yet not necessarily part of the
encryption) are also paid for at an already high price that is due to
be multiplied by 2.5 very shortly. Not only that but the broadcasters
themselves pay the costs incurred in supplying the EPG data to Sky in
a suitable format.
>>And since the BBC administer their own FTV cards via their own phone
>>line, why should Sky be paid for this? It's not like pay channels, who
>>use Sky's billing system, computers and CS representatives. The
>>"administration costs" are already paid for by the BBC because they do
>>it themselves.
>
>Except the BBC pay Sky to handle the billing system, computers, and CS
>representatives. Sorry.
The billing system? What billing system? FTV channels are free, in
case you hadn't noticed. And the BBC actually pay Sky for encryption,
again for the EPG position, again for card provision and then on top
of that they pay another company for card issue and customer service.
It doesn't matter how you look at this: Sky are masters at getting
themselves into a position whereby they control everything and get
paid many times for the same thing. This has long been their declared
business strategy and should come as no surprise to anyone.
--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/4f9c
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://www.logofreetv.org.uk/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.cjb.net/
Jomtien
>The UK Government (of whatever hue) apparently still believes that a
>monopoly-supplier's inevitable tendency to take advantage of that position
>can be curbed by some form of regulation.
It can be, easily, if the regulator isn't in bed with the service
provider.
Jomtien
>>I'd love someone to explain to me exactly what Sky think they are
>>doing to merit charging the BBC and ITV £17million each per year
>
>Building a digital platform which brings those channels into millions
>of homes, perhaps?
The platform already exists and is already paid for many times over
and in many ways. £17million is an absurdly large amount of money for
any such service.
Jomtien
>>According to Greg Dyke, the new price being asked of the BBC is almost
>>2.5x that of the old one:-
>>
>>I'd certainly call £7m per year jumping to £17m per year, an "increase".
>
>The removal of a discount is not a price increase.
It is when the original full price is based on something invented by a
monopoly supplier. If Sky said that the price was 50p per year it
would be accepted. If they said that it was £500million per year it
would be accepted also. Therefore there is nothing stopping them from
choosing any price that they like and then discounting it to any
extent that they choose. All the numbers are totally fake and have no
basis whatsoever in reality.
--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/4f9c
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://www.logofreetv.org.uk/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.cjb.net/
Brian McIlwrath
: It's well known that you're pretty much the only person on this group
: who refuses to believe the figure that the BBC will save of £85m, even
: though they have stated it themselves, it has been widely reported in
: the press and several people here have calculated it out several
: times.
No - he certainly isn't the only person!
It's very well known (but ignored by the anto-Sky brigade!) that the BBC
deliberately calculated the *maximum* they could possibly be charged to
help make their case! They hadn't even started to talk to Sky.
Philomena
But the BBC haven't got to "make their case". They have control over
their own financial decisions and don't need anyone else's approval to
decide not to re-sign with Sky. There's no point in "talking to Sky"
about the charges, or trying to negotiate charges, if what they do in
fact want to do is to leave. Which it appears is indeed what they
intend to do. So talking about the price would be a waste of time.
In any case, the BBC didn't attribute the whole of the estimated £85
savings to the Sky charges, just said that that would be the bulk of it.
I imagine there will be other anticipated effects on income, for
instance there may be increased subs for BBC World and the other BBC
commercial stations, from people in Europe who can't receive the BBC
from its new location.
Ant
>>The encryption system is not the platform. Sorry.
>
>Granted, but the BBC are being charged for encryption services, noit
>for any other part of the "platform".
Yes they are. That is absolutely what they are being charged for.
Here, read this:
http://www1.sky.com/corporate/bskyb1.htm
and this:
"EPG charges recover both the costs of developing and operating the
EPG, and also make a contribution to the recovery of some of the
common costs of developing and operating the digital satellite
platform. Channels that take SSSL’s CA services make a contribution to
such common costs via CA charges "
>The BBC don't use Sky's billing system, as they don't issue any bills.
>IIRC the BBC contract separately for their call centre too.
Didn't the BBC try to run their own call centre but it was such a
disaster that they went back to Sky? I don't remember. (And I think I
read it in 'What Satellite', so its accuracy must be suspect.)
Ant
>>The encryption system is not the platform. Sorry.
>
>Actually it is. Without the encryption there is no platform as such:
I think I'd disagree - even FTA satellite can be a "platform" if it is
packaged and sold in such a way.
>The billing system? What billing system? FTV channels are free, in
>case you hadn't noticed.
You can get pay services on a FTV card. Sky+, remember?
>It doesn't matter how you look at this: Sky are masters at getting
>themselves into a position whereby they control everything and get
>paid many times for the same thing.
Well that clearly is untrue when it comes to EPG and CA charges.
And Oftel seem to agree too.
Ant
wrote:
>Why on earth should FTV channels be forced to subsidise other "pay-TV"
>areas of Sky's "platform" on top of paying over the odds for
>encryption, etc?!
Because they're benefiting from it. A more suitable question should be
"Why should free TV channels be able to ride on the back of a company
which spends a lot of money giving away set top boxes?"
The alternative is for those TV channels to give away their own boxes
(and that is not going to happen), or they make some contribution to
the third party which is doing so.
>And exactly what is the "platform":-
Sky Digital. It's a platform - just like Freeview.
>EPG listings fees don't exist in most (if not all) other countries due
>to far more flexible reception hardware being used, so Sky are already
>being compensated for thin air in this respect.
Sky is providing a service which does not exist in other countries. So
not quite 'thin air'.
>As pointed out many times, Sky's encryption charges are well over the
>top compared to those elsewhere, so they're being compensated well
>over the odds for this, too.
Opinion is not fact.
>All Sky have uniquely done is design some deliberately crippled
>digiboxes ... monopolistic ... Sky who are causing most of the problems...
Oh, YAWN!
>Maybe the BBC should invent one or two extra charges for Sky for
>having a couple of Sky channels on DTT simply because the BBC put a
>lot of investment in the DTT platform...
Already happening. Sky will already be paying for their space on DTT.
You don't think those Freeview channels got there all by themselves,
did you?
>And the BBC do not use Sky's CS representatives at all.
>That's why you don't phone Sky up for a BBC card...
Funny, the bloke I spoke to last week had a Scottish accent and
certainly SEEMED to be at Sky. He had full access to all my Sky
account details, too...
>>Well this is very interesting but it's not the same thing at all.
>>Sorry.
>
>Actually, it's a very good analogy.
For it to be a good analogy it would have to be the same thing or at
least comprable in some way. This is not.
>Claiming that £85m isn't correct (despite the fact the BBC have it in
>writing from Sky) simply because the BBC haven't negotiated a lower
>price is ridiculous.
Do the BBC have it in writing? I'd find that hard to believe without
any negotiation. I'm willing to change my mind if you can cite a
suitable source, though...
>>The very first link you posted indicated that a discount could have
>>been negotiated, if there had been one.
>
>And it might not, meaning that £85m is correct.
So now you're arguing against your OWN evidence?
>>Because the price is not fixed - it is an indicative rate.
>
>Which only goes to show how much of a farce the supposedly "regulated"
>price is in the first place. If the "indicative rate" (which in your
>own words) is "deemed to be fair and reasonable by Oftel", then by
>negotiating the amount to another level, it could be argued that the
>rate is no longer "fair and reasonable", especially if other channels
>are still paying the original supposedly "regulated" rate.
So first it's unfair because everyone has to pay the same, and now
it's unfair because not everyone pays the same. Any chance you could
make up your mind?
>Only a fool can seriously describe this current scenario as being
>"fair and reasonable" when "free" channels end up paying many times
>more than "pay" channels for encryption.
Some evidence for that would be nice...
Ant
>The platform already exists and is already paid for many times over
>and in many ways. £17million is an absurdly large amount of money for
>any such service.
So if I build a house, you should be able to move into it for free
because it already exists. I see.
Ant
wrote:
>So why did greg Dyke say:-
>
>"They recently wrote to us with revised terms for the next five years.
>It's a complicated deal but basically we would have to pay £85m over
>the next 5 years for a service we believe we no longer need."
Greg Dyke in that same speech said that the Astra 2D beam was focused
on the UK and Ireland and that there was "no overspill" into Europe.
And that wasn't true either.
This is a speech which was designed to say "aren't we clever, aren't
we the best" and of course you're only going to get one side of the
story from that. (Shame even THAT side of it wasn't accurate.)
Ant
>It can be, easily, if the regulator isn't in bed with the service
>provider.
A serious allegation of which I am sure you have your usual level of
proof - i.e. none at all.
Ant
>All the numbers are totally fake and have no
>basis whatsoever in reality.
Like the ludicrous arguments you come out with here?
Ant
wrote:
>As pointed out to you before, the true cost of encryption
The CA charges include more than encryption. You already know this.
Philomena
>On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:33:36 +0100, metn41 <met...@dsl.pipex.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And exactly what is the "platform":-
>
>Sky Digital. It's a platform - just like Freeview.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that in the first case the
platform would be digital satellite, not Sky Digital. And in the second
case the platform is digital terrestrial. "Freeview", which is just a
marketing company, has come to be used as a name for all of digital
terrestrial, but there is no "Freeview" authority which has
responsibility or control over all digital terrestrial channels, or all
MUXes.
And the same is true for digital satellite. The FTA channels, the FTV
channels, and the subscription channels are all on the same platform,
which is DSAT, not Sky Digital. Sky Digital does not control the
platform as a whole.
The Wizard
"Ant" <A...@0spam.want.no.spam.zzz> wrote in message
news:3ed36305...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:33:36 +0100, metn41 <met...@dsl.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Why on earth should FTV channels be forced to subsidise other "pay-TV"
> >areas of Sky's "platform" on top of paying over the odds for
> >encryption, etc?!
>
> Because they're benefiting from it. A more suitable question should be
> "Why should free TV channels be able to ride on the back of a company
> which spends a lot of money giving away set top boxes?"
Much like if a garage said "Get a free car from us BUT you can only buy your
petrol here at a small £25.00 per litre"..Yeah right!
> The alternative is for those TV channels to give away their own boxes
> (and that is not going to happen), or they make some contribution to
> the third party which is doing so.
You mean carrying an encryption that NDS would hack and help that company go
bust as they did with ITV-D?
> >And exactly what is the "platform":-
>
> Sky Digital. It's a platform - just like Freeview.
A bunch of thieves running it though,They know the British people are a
bunch of gophers who see the word free but nothing that would tie them into
an expensive contract UNTIL they've signed it.
> >EPG listings fees don't exist in most (if not all) other countries due
> >to far more flexible reception hardware being used, so Sky are already
> >being compensated for thin air in this respect.
>
> Sky is providing a service which does not exist in other countries. So
> not quite 'thin air'.
Still the same service but in a different country,So no difference at
all..Face it,SKY are just making the most of their monopoly and their power
over the ITC,Government and all.
> >As pointed out many times, Sky's encryption charges are well over the
> >top compared to those elsewhere, so they're being compensated well
> >over the odds for this, too.
>
> Opinion is not fact.
But quite true.
> >All Sky have uniquely done is design some deliberately crippled
> >digiboxes ... monopolistic ... Sky who are causing most of the
problems...
>
> Oh, YAWN!
A murdoch cock sucker indeed!
> >Maybe the BBC should invent one or two extra charges for Sky for
> >having a couple of Sky channels on DTT simply because the BBC put a
> >lot of investment in the DTT platform...
>
> Already happening. Sky will already be paying for their space on DTT.
> You don't think those Freeview channels got there all by themselves,
> did you?
Except of course Freeview was a joint venture by BBC/Sky and Castle
communications,So they'll just pay for their broadcasting license.
The recent ITC law that allowed SATELLITE channels to advertise more than
terrestrial channels is a fair indication that they need more cash to pay
Murdoch and his cronies!
All the BBC need to do is continue FTA and other channels will
follow,Knowing their cash can go into making a profit instead of feeding
most of it into Skys pockets.
Ant
wrote:
>EPG charges do not exist on any other satellite system in Europe
Which is not relevant to a discussion about a system where they DO
exist.
Ant
wrote:
>But there is nothing left to package. All that's needed is a £99 FTA
>satellite receiver, just as you buy a £99 DTT receiver for Freeview
>(and you don't call that a "package", do you?)
Perhaps not, but if you gave people free FTA satellite boxes and
installed it for them for no money or at a large discount, that is a
package. If you're being sold that equipment on behalf of a company
which will benefit from you having the ability to watch the services
so provided (like Freeview) then that is a platform.
>You also have to pay to use a Tivo, but that too is totally irrelevant
>when discussing BBC charges. Why should the BBC subsidise Sky+
>payments?!
Who says they are?
>Indeed, the rest of Europe doesn't have ANY ongoing subs
>for the privilege of using a HDD recorder.
Indeed, and the rest of Europe doesn't have an HDD recorder anything
like as advanced as Sky+. Next question?
>>Well that clearly is untrue when it comes to EPG and CA charges.
>>And Oftel seem to agree too.
>
>No, it's very true.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. Evidence, remember?
>As pointed out in another post, EPG charges for
>the privilege of being listed on Sky is like Microsoft charging a
>listings fee for the privilege of having a shortcut in the Start menu.
Well, let's compare like with like. If Microsoft gave away PCs and
installed them in people's homes for free, then charging a THIRD PARTY
for the ability to appear on everyone's start menu ("automatic
entitlement", perhaps) is actually not unreasonable. If the third
party benefits from the success of Microsoft in subsidising the
ownership of PCs in this country then it is unreasonable for that
third party to expect to ride on the back of that success for free.
Ant
<the...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Much like if a garage said "Get a free car from us BUT you can only buy your
>petrol here at a small £25.00 per litre"..Yeah right!
Well.. yeah, why not? If that suits people, why not?
Ant
>>Sky Digital. It's a platform - just like Freeview.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that in the first case the
>platform would be digital satellite, not Sky Digital.
Technically there are two platforms there. Digital satellite, which is
generally not co-ordinated or centrally marketed, and Sky Digital,
which happens to broadcast by digital satellite (but could just as
easily be carried by cable - as already happens in Kingston).
>And in the second case the platform is digital terrestrial. "Freeview", which is just a
>marketing company, has come to be used as a name for all of digital
>terrestrial, but there is no "Freeview" authority which has
>responsibility or control over all digital terrestrial channels, or all MUXes.
Quite true. This was again the case in the old days where there was
"digital terrestrial" and "ONdigital". Of course everyone called the
whole shebang "ONdigital" but that wasn't strictly correct. In both
senses those are both platforms, although there is obviously
considerable overlap between the two, especially today in the case of
Freeview, which has multiplexes on both sides of the tracks.
>And the same is true for digital satellite. The FTA channels, the FTV
>channels, and the subscription channels are all on the same platform,
>which is DSAT, not Sky Digital. Sky Digital does not control the
>platform as a whole.
I'd agree partially - Sky Digital certainly does not control the
digital satellite platform as a whole, but in the subset of digital
satellite that is the Sky Digital platform, yes, they certainly have
control there. (And even then, they are obliged to provide free and
fair access to it for all comers - an obligation which you'll note
that cable companies do not have.)
Ant
wrote:
>So let me get this straight. You want free channels to donate extra
>money to Sky for giving away boxes that Sky prevented people from
>buying at a reasonable price in the first place,
Not true.
>and still does
>prevent people from buying their own non-Sky boxes so they wouldn't
>have to give them away?!
Not true.
>Using your logic, all freeware programs for Windows should donate
>money to Microsoft so that they can build a proprietary Microsoft
>computer that you must buy if you want to run Windows, on top of the
>money people pay for the OS in the first place, even though these
>people may want to buy a standard PC to use their software with.
If Microsoft gave away millions of PCs and then I, as a freeware
developer, went to Microsoft and said "I want YOU to put my freeware
on EVERYONE'S PC so that I make money out of it, get a good reputation
or otherwise benefit from it", then actually, yeah, I wouldn't expect
that to be free. It would benefit me and not benefit Microsoft so why
would I possibly think I had a god-given right to be there?
If people with those free PCs want to download my freeware for
themselves and install it manually ("other channels", anyone?) then I
wouldn't expect to be charged for that, no - and indeed the same
applies with Sky.
>Sky have long got their money back on giving away digiboxes.
Proof? Evidence?
>Or simply make boxes available at a reasonable price in the first
>place with the option to rent for those who can't afford to buy
>outright.
Exactly how much more reasonable can you get than free?
If you don't want a Sky contract, that's fine - £170. Not at all
unreasonable.
>I don't see anyone giving freeview boxes away, and they're
>selling very well with far fewer channels...
That's true - but here's an interesting fact.. Once people get
Freeview, they spend most of their time watching channels 1-5.
Only 20% of viewing in Freeview homes goes towards the extra channels,
in contrast to Sky homes where it's more than half the viewing. That
tells you straight away that Freeview may be free, but obviously
people don't really find it THAT interesting.
After all, Sky has nearly 7 million paying customers - who each and
every month choose to continue to subscribe to the service and watch
the channels they pay for. Freeview is great too, but people don't
have a subscription to cancel - so the sale of a Freeview box is not
really comparable to an active subscription.
>Sky didn't suddenly decide, "let's give these away out of the goodness
>of our heats to help our platform grow." They only started giving them
>away when OnDigital came into existence. "Building the platform" was
>certainly not the prime reason for the digibox giveaway. It is
>blatantly obvious why it was done.
Yes, possibly because ONdigital actually started giving their boxes
away before Sky did. People don't seem to remember this.
>Neither did Sky give away analogue boxes for free yet the "platform"
>still existed. Creating half a dozen different charges and increasing
>them year upon year by substantial amounts more than pays for giving
>away digiboxes that are built down to a price.
I think those charges actually pay largely for the channels.
>Ant, EPG's are found on pretty much every digital satellite receiver
>ever made (some up to 28 days) and it is free for channels to be
>listed in them. What on earth do you mean "doesn't exist in other
>countries"?!? EPG's as a whole, or the fact that on other boxes, YOU
>control the EPG and not the content provider.
And on other boxes YOU have EPGs which all work in different ways, and
then when you actually look at them you discover that at least 90% of
the channels don't use them AT ALL. Take a look through the channels
on Astra 1 or Hotbird and most of the channels can't even tell you
what's on now, let alone in seven days time.
>Considering some of your own posts, you would do well to bear that in
>mind yourself. This whole argument spawned from your strongly held
>*opinion* that the BBC won't save £85m despite there being *facts*
>that show it is entirely possible that they will if no negotiations
>take place, which again, your *opinion* is that they will.
Facts which show that something is "entirely possible" is evidence
only of the possibility, not of the actuality.
Since there was no negotiation, we obviously don't know how much the
BBC will save. Greg Dyke could give a press conference saying that by
not going into a local garage he's saved himself £3,000 because that's
how much they could have charged him for a fill-up. These remarks
would be swiftly reported in the press, people would take his
photograph, and thick media writers would slavishly print what he said
as if it was some kind of fact. Even thicker participants on usenet
newsgroups would hail this as a great victory for the BBC, a major
kick in the pants for evil petrol companies.. stuff like that.
Sure, Mr Dyke COULD have been charged anything for his petrol. But
without him actually entering the process of finding out how much he
would have been charged, we'll never know.
>>Oh, YAWN!
>
>Yes, that's your usual response when you have nothing to say. It can
>be clearly seen in various threads.
No, it's my reponse to people who have nothing to say and therefore
can only come out with the same old tripe about monopolies and such.
>No, I'm not talking about their broadcasting space, I'm talking about
>a similar extra contribution to the BBC on top simply because the BBC
>has been promoting Freeview more than Sky has and therefore needs
>compensating for "building the platform". You know, just like that
>extra one you claim Sky has a "right" to charge for building their
>"platform".
Absolutely. If the BBC had spent money on building the platform, for
example, by funding free set top boxes, then you'd expect there to be
a charge. After all, the channels would benefit from the money the BBC
had spent, and it would not be unreasonable to expect the BBC to get
some contribution towards that cost from the channels.
>Even if that is the case and even if I am wrong about where the BBC
>card people are based, it has already been pointed out to you
>elsewhere that they already pay for this on top of encryption. It is
>not part of the encryption costs at all and doesn't make the price Sky
>charges for it look any better, which is actually my main point.
Different things cost different amounts of money.
>>Do the BBC have it in writing? I'd find that hard to believe without
>>any negotiation. I'm willing to change my mind if you can cite a
>>suitable source, though...
>
>Why would they have to "negotiate" for what is effectively, a notice
>of renewal of contract. I don't have to negotiate with BT to get my
>phone bill when it is due.
Well that's not the same sort of relationship. You're a private
customer buying things at a retail price. If you were one of BT's
wholesale partners, then you would indeed expect to negotiate the
renewal of a contract.
>>>And it might not, meaning that £85m is correct.
>
>>So now you're arguing against your OWN evidence?
>
>Now what are you waffling on about? My point was simply to show the
>sheer number of media people stating the £85m figure that *COULD* be
>possible.
Exactly - could. No more than that. And my point is that we'll never
know since there has been no negotiation.
>If there are, then it proves Sky can provide their encryption services
>at a lower price than they claim it costs (which was one of my earlier
>points).
I don't think anyone has claimed that the price of a service is only
"what it costs and nothing more". If you were in business you would
obviously not stay in business for very long if you sold all your
products for exactly what they cost you to make.
>Now, exactly where did I say "it's unfair because everyone has to pay
>the same"? You haven't gone back to inventing quotes again, have you,
>Ant? It gets a little tedious after a while.
Don't forget that I stopped arguing with you last month because of
your ability to mis-quote me. During the points you've made so far you
have expressed both sides of that opinion. Which is it to be?
>And if channel "A" pays the "set" regulated price of say £10m, and
>channel "B" negotiates their price down to £6m because they aren't
>willing to pay £10m, then considering the whole price of encryption is
>supposed to be fixed by the regulator, I'd say that's "unfair" on one
>of them don't you?
The price of encryption is not meant to be fixed - that is called
price fixing and is bad for business. It is meant to be set at a FAIR
and REASONABLE level. No more. It means that Sky cannot say to yet
another tedious shopping channel "We don't want your channel on our
service so you'll have to pay us £5 million to get into the EPG".
(That said, perhaps unfair and urneasonable charges for shopping
channels would not be such a bad thing.) :-)
>>Some evidence for that would be nice...
>
>It is well known that many channels who are in Sky's packages do not
>have to pay for encryption because that is part of the deal of being
>in the Family Pack.
Or because the income they recieve from subscription already takes
into account the cost of encryption? I suppose you didn't think of
that.
Ant
wrote:
>>So if I build a house, you should be able to move into it for free
>>because it already exists. I see.
>
>No, but then no-one is stating that Astra should give away transponder
>space for free.
No, in the same way that I am not expecting the land on which my house
is built to be free.
I paid for my land/transponder space, I spent money to build my
house/give away digiboxes. I'm not going to let people move into my
house for free just "because it already exists", and if someone else
wants to build their own house next door to me then that's just great,
it makes the neighbourhood all the nicer. If my neighbour thinks that
my front door is nicer and wants me to let people come into their
house through my front door (my goodness, this would make me some kind
of "gatekeeper") then that's fine but you can't expect me to do that
for free. After all, I am very busy of an evening toning my perfect
abs, and do not wish to have to keep getting up and opening the door.
If my neighbour is happy to have people walk the long way around to
reach their property then that's fine too. The important thing is that
everyone has a choice and can pick the deal they're happy with.
Ant
wrote:
>>The CA charges include more than encryption. You already know this.
>
>And that is the same for non-Sky encryption services, too.
Proof, evidence?
If I'm talking rubbish you can make me look a fool, just show me the
facts. You already know that I freely admit when I'm wrong. But in
this instance I don't believe that I am.
Jomtien
>>The billing system? What billing system? FTV channels are free, in
>>case you hadn't noticed.
>
>You can get pay services on a FTV card. Sky+, remember?
Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with the BBC. Sky make the
charge, not the BBC. The BBC have nothing whatsoever to do with Sky
billing.