Dish Network trying to kill Pansat and Legal FTA
- Thread starter tvropro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 114
- Views 25K
- Status
As a European the US view that FTA is not primarily there for the FTA guys seems somewhat strange. Virtually all FTA is commercial backed and clearly sponsors want their product known to all, they don't care whether you pay or not to view their ads. FTA guys are just in my view the sane part of todays society.
Neither Dish or Direct own all the satellites and pay peanuts for their transponders compared to their greedy subscription charges.
Turning to the UK, Freeview is a result of the growing demand for FTA. the Dish look alike Sky has priced themselves so far out of the market their cancellations staff is their biggest department.
I saw mentioned earlier the all UK tv viewers to watch FTA or paid tv have to pay $250 pa licence fee. This is a UK Govenment tax (a bit like the $7 tax they add to a gallon on gas which is now around $8 a gallon total) and I hope this does not catch on in the States! Freeview occurred when Sky who acted as middleman between SES Astra and ITV and the BBC tried to con more millions out of them. BBC and ITV said NO and went direct to SES Astra saving GB£40m.
Hacking has not been a major concern in Europe and I suspect if the truth were told here in the US but has always been used as propoganda by the poor impoverished Dish and Direct. Since the latest encryptions are somewhat better D&D will have to find something else to bleat about.
Card Sharing could well be a problem to Sky, D&D and legislation has not caught up with that throughout Europe yet. I don't know about the US.
In my view FTA is here to stay and can only get better as more companies go to satellite rather than maintain so many relay terrestial tranmitters or cable or D&D costs.
Neither Dish or Direct own all the satellites and pay peanuts for their transponders compared to their greedy subscription charges.
Turning to the UK, Freeview is a result of the growing demand for FTA. the Dish look alike Sky has priced themselves so far out of the market their cancellations staff is their biggest department.
I saw mentioned earlier the all UK tv viewers to watch FTA or paid tv have to pay $250 pa licence fee. This is a UK Govenment tax (a bit like the $7 tax they add to a gallon on gas which is now around $8 a gallon total) and I hope this does not catch on in the States! Freeview occurred when Sky who acted as middleman between SES Astra and ITV and the BBC tried to con more millions out of them. BBC and ITV said NO and went direct to SES Astra saving GB£40m.
Hacking has not been a major concern in Europe and I suspect if the truth were told here in the US but has always been used as propoganda by the poor impoverished Dish and Direct. Since the latest encryptions are somewhat better D&D will have to find something else to bleat about.
Card Sharing could well be a problem to Sky, D&D and legislation has not caught up with that throughout Europe yet. I don't know about the US.
In my view FTA is here to stay and can only get better as more companies go to satellite rather than maintain so many relay terrestial tranmitters or cable or D&D costs.
I hope you are right about FTA being 'here to stay' in the west Pedro. There are some mighty powerful and greedy forces that desire otherwise.
I feel for our Euopean conterparts as I see that 'tax' as govt sanctioned extortion, not to mention the unwarranted ability to violate and invade a citizens privacy. Here one better have a warrant to enter one's domcile to search for anything illegal. I wonder how much of the revenue goes to fund the TV Tax Police and its administration? Hmmmmm...........can anyone say self justification?
It is my understanding that this is BBC funding revenue, at least for the UK, for quality and minimal (by who's definition?) commercial programming, as well as being used for the switch to digital transmission. This all sounds like a forced paid service to me. If they want to be paid by the citizens veiwing their broadcasts, they should have to set it up as a subscription service, not presume all citizens ARE watching because the CAN watch ANY video content. Very presumtious and pompus, but then......well, I'll leave that one alone..........lol.
Regardless, it shouldnt be that difficult using readily available digital transmission technology.
I dont see a simiar tax evolving here in the States,(the Boston Tea party would look like a Sunday picnic.) If anything letharious happens for tv recieption here, I truely expect it to be in the form of FREE OTA programming eventually become subscription based. All of it, even PBS, and it will be slipped in our backs (over time) like a sharp scalpel. They have rammed this 'digital salvation' propaganda in every available orifice for several years now, so now the encryption framework is convienently in place, and the 'new and improved' concept willingly gobbled up and embraced by the sheep.
Thing is, if any broadcast entity had justification to go that route here, it would be PBS, which irronically is mandated to be free by the govt since it is primarily govt funded. Volunteer contributions arent enough. I have to plead guilty there as well. I have not compensated nearly as much as myself, or my family have enjoyed PBS programming. Am I the only freeloader, dont everybody speak up at once!
I can see the logic in sub'ing such a service, but those that are commercial and popup ridden wanting add'l compensation really tick me off.
If I were a sponsor I too would want the maximum exposure as well. That would be the one with no cost to Joe Consumer right? Well, it should be anyway. Problem is everybody is paying somebody, and they are adding their 20% markup on top and passing it down the food chain. (the service providers already have an adequate profit margin to begin with) I see psuedo "networks" like Lifetime, Spike, USA, etc are the double dippers. The sponsors pay them. The SPs have to pay them carriage for their ad riddled programming as well. Then the Cable/IPTV/SSPs charge Joe Consumer that fee proportionaly, plus a healthy profit margin. And ol' Joe gets the *privledge* to pay to watch tv for three hours to see one and a half hours of movie content with halfscreen popup graphic crap about irrelevant upcomming programming a minute into the movie after every commercial break interval. Ain't it grand. (The only way I watch anything on USA anymore is recorded/timeshited so I can Cm skip)
You would think the sponsors would have a problem with all of this, but the real po' mouthin' is from the pseudo networks crying about how much it costs, and that if this structure wasnt in place, they would have to charge more for the commercial time (IOW, to protect thier profit margin. Prolly almost as lucritive as my *favorite* form of profit protected legalized theft - Insurance) That of course is not what the sponsor wants to here. For me this, "It costs this for digital such and such, and that for so and so" etc, falls on deaf ears, simply put it is the cost of doing biz. Pay for it or go tits up, 'cause there are other plenty of other 'networks' out there that are able to take up the slack.
The service providers do their share of po' mouthin' too, but it pales to that of these 'networks'. Dont even get me started on the local channel 'negotiation' debacle. If anything the station should pay for an increased audience, not expect compensation for rebroadcasting it's content, which is already paid for by the advertizer......
All in all if encryption doesnt get us, technology leaps will. For downlink users S2 and megapipe are old hat now, and we as FTA'er have barely cracked that glass ceiling. Such equipment is far from commonplace in most TVRO setups.
Free is always the right price, but I dont think I am alone in being willing to pay a fair and reasonable price for premium A/V service(s), with little to no commercial adverts, but it really irritates me to have to PAY to watch commercials. Unfortunately that is the structure, which this side of high seas piracy, is inescapable.
Odd that the 'structure', it's individual elements and agencys are allowed, even encourage to (legally) perform highway robbery, yet are the first to cry fowl when they are being treated the same way.
I feel for our Euopean conterparts as I see that 'tax' as govt sanctioned extortion, not to mention the unwarranted ability to violate and invade a citizens privacy. Here one better have a warrant to enter one's domcile to search for anything illegal. I wonder how much of the revenue goes to fund the TV Tax Police and its administration? Hmmmmm...........can anyone say self justification?
It is my understanding that this is BBC funding revenue, at least for the UK, for quality and minimal (by who's definition?) commercial programming, as well as being used for the switch to digital transmission. This all sounds like a forced paid service to me. If they want to be paid by the citizens veiwing their broadcasts, they should have to set it up as a subscription service, not presume all citizens ARE watching because the CAN watch ANY video content. Very presumtious and pompus, but then......well, I'll leave that one alone..........lol.
Regardless, it shouldnt be that difficult using readily available digital transmission technology.
I dont see a simiar tax evolving here in the States,(the Boston Tea party would look like a Sunday picnic.) If anything letharious happens for tv recieption here, I truely expect it to be in the form of FREE OTA programming eventually become subscription based. All of it, even PBS, and it will be slipped in our backs (over time) like a sharp scalpel. They have rammed this 'digital salvation' propaganda in every available orifice for several years now, so now the encryption framework is convienently in place, and the 'new and improved' concept willingly gobbled up and embraced by the sheep.
Thing is, if any broadcast entity had justification to go that route here, it would be PBS, which irronically is mandated to be free by the govt since it is primarily govt funded. Volunteer contributions arent enough. I have to plead guilty there as well. I have not compensated nearly as much as myself, or my family have enjoyed PBS programming. Am I the only freeloader, dont everybody speak up at once!
I can see the logic in sub'ing such a service, but those that are commercial and popup ridden wanting add'l compensation really tick me off.
If I were a sponsor I too would want the maximum exposure as well. That would be the one with no cost to Joe Consumer right? Well, it should be anyway. Problem is everybody is paying somebody, and they are adding their 20% markup on top and passing it down the food chain. (the service providers already have an adequate profit margin to begin with) I see psuedo "networks" like Lifetime, Spike, USA, etc are the double dippers. The sponsors pay them. The SPs have to pay them carriage for their ad riddled programming as well. Then the Cable/IPTV/SSPs charge Joe Consumer that fee proportionaly, plus a healthy profit margin. And ol' Joe gets the *privledge* to pay to watch tv for three hours to see one and a half hours of movie content with halfscreen popup graphic crap about irrelevant upcomming programming a minute into the movie after every commercial break interval. Ain't it grand. (The only way I watch anything on USA anymore is recorded/timeshited so I can Cm skip)
You would think the sponsors would have a problem with all of this, but the real po' mouthin' is from the pseudo networks crying about how much it costs, and that if this structure wasnt in place, they would have to charge more for the commercial time (IOW, to protect thier profit margin. Prolly almost as lucritive as my *favorite* form of profit protected legalized theft - Insurance) That of course is not what the sponsor wants to here. For me this, "It costs this for digital such and such, and that for so and so" etc, falls on deaf ears, simply put it is the cost of doing biz. Pay for it or go tits up, 'cause there are other plenty of other 'networks' out there that are able to take up the slack.
The service providers do their share of po' mouthin' too, but it pales to that of these 'networks'. Dont even get me started on the local channel 'negotiation' debacle. If anything the station should pay for an increased audience, not expect compensation for rebroadcasting it's content, which is already paid for by the advertizer......
All in all if encryption doesnt get us, technology leaps will. For downlink users S2 and megapipe are old hat now, and we as FTA'er have barely cracked that glass ceiling. Such equipment is far from commonplace in most TVRO setups.
Free is always the right price, but I dont think I am alone in being willing to pay a fair and reasonable price for premium A/V service(s), with little to no commercial adverts, but it really irritates me to have to PAY to watch commercials. Unfortunately that is the structure, which this side of high seas piracy, is inescapable.
Odd that the 'structure', it's individual elements and agencys are allowed, even encourage to (legally) perform highway robbery, yet are the first to cry fowl when they are being treated the same way.
Here in Canada if you sub to either Canadian minidish system you pay about $20 a month for the basic channels, which are all the OTA channels from across Canada. This is the minimum package you can get before you can get any other channels, and the service providers pay absolutely nothing to the OTA channels. Then they put 1 good channel in with a bunch of crap channels and charge you at least $5 a months for the 1 good channel you get. This way they force you to subscribe to 4-8 of those crap pakages to get the few channels you want. Throw in another $25 or so for movie channels (commercial free) and any sports pakages like NFL, MLB, NHL or NASCAR and you end up with a bill of $70-120 a months.
The best way IMO is with a more European FTA system and an ala carte pay channel selection that is used by American C band. Untill that happens I won't be paying for any pay TV. Back in the late 90's early 00's I had a min sub, E &W US nets, and movie channels on my ExpressVu system and channels like A&E, Discovery and HBO/Max on my American analog c-band system. That way I could pay only for the channels I watched and ended up paying a lot less. If I had room for a BUD again I think I would get a 4DTV and some movie channels to augement my FTA ku channels, but since I currently don't I'll take what I can get for free on my FTA reciever.
The best way IMO is with a more European FTA system and an ala carte pay channel selection that is used by American C band. Untill that happens I won't be paying for any pay TV. Back in the late 90's early 00's I had a min sub, E &W US nets, and movie channels on my ExpressVu system and channels like A&E, Discovery and HBO/Max on my American analog c-band system. That way I could pay only for the channels I watched and ended up paying a lot less. If I had room for a BUD again I think I would get a 4DTV and some movie channels to augement my FTA ku channels, but since I currently don't I'll take what I can get for free on my FTA reciever.
In 1934 the FCC agreed, and basicly said if it's in the air, anyone who wants to recieve it can do so. If you dont want it recieved by others dont put it over the air. That is one reason phone taping is SO taboo. It is tresspassing and can cause potential damage to others' property.
Unfortunately, enter the high powered corporate lobbyist, and some politicians with an agenda (imagine that!) and we now have the DMCA which basicly says if you even attempt to intercept an encrypted signal of any nature that was not specificly intended for you to recieve you are in violation of a federal law! Toss in a few hail Mary's, an allegation or two of terrorism or national/homeland security threats and you have a nice kangaroo court setting that allows them to put you under the pokey. Too much power AFAIC. Who is watching the watchers?
It is still illegal to possess equipment that can rx analog cell phones, even though that tech has been dead for a while. I feel the same about that, and cordless' for that matter, that if you are worried about being overheard, dont say it over the air. Use a land line, it falls under the wiretapping protection.
Interestingly, it is amazing how many people will hook up an audio transmitter, aka babymonitor, and unknowingly broadcast every sound in their home for blocks to anyone that cares to listen. Babymonitors use some of the 1st and 2nd gen cordless's freqs at 49mhz. The other side of the duplex was at 46mhz for 2nd gen and ~1.8mhz for 1st gen. Talk about comming across some interesting content..................
Leave it to the govt to find loopholes though. For electronic data monitoring, the FBI has Carnivore, no warrant or notification needed. With the current tech of IP phones, a supposedly simple data logger could capture all data, including encoded audio and video.
Quoted For Truth :up
The MPAA and RIAA would love a tax paying them for such things.
The TV License group is a scary bunch of thugs.
Link to some adverts they run: TV Licensing - TV Licensing Trails and Ads
Also google "TV licence thugs" and get a bunch of scary stories.
I understood that the icing on the cake was the trouble rolling out DVB-T transmitters and how hard it was for outlying villages to get reliable DVB-T reception vs analogue.
Heck when you have to hire a licensed installer (as required by law) to install a new UHF antenna for DVB-T, you might as well have a 60cm for DVB-S with 3 universals installed and pick up alot more channels for about the same cost annually.
Card-sharing on one's property should be legal...:tux:
Too bad Tier-2 Internet fiber-optics seem to be the next-gen choice here in the States.
One last thing "F*** the DMCA!"
If you'll pardon the language for a second, very little can get me in a huff, but the DMCA is one of them.
I have no kind words for anything enforcing it.
@elder
According to my interpertation (I am not a laywer) What little is left of fair use in the DMCA would say you view is within the law.
Okay I'm done whining...
From the perspective of someone who lives in the UK...
The TV Licensing bunch (primarily a private company, btw) only have rights barely above a normal citizen. They CANNOT force entry to your home if they visit, you don't even need to answer the door. What they can do is get a warrant to enter your home (with a policeman etc) if they have evidence of you watching live television (like if you're stupid enough to have the TV on in your front room with BBC news blaring out).
You don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV that you own is not connected to an aerial (or set top box), and is not tuned in to broadcast channels. It's perfectly legal to use a TV with a DVD player, games console, computer etc without having to have a licence. When you buy that TV, you may get more nastygrams from the TVL lot (trying to scare you into having a licence - even though their site says you don't), but you don't have to worry too much about them. You aren't doing anything illegal after all.
You can, however own/operate a DVB-T or DVB-S box without plugging it into a TV (and for what it's worth, this includes TV cards) and not pay for a licence. This is mainly for those who want to listen to radio stations and so have it plugged into a hi-fi.
In 2003 the law changed from needing a licence to watch live UK TV broadcasts, to watching any form of live broadcast television altogether.
And as for their advertising - it's like any UK government advertising, it's made to be far scarier than the truth really is.
actually its 30+ for the basic package
We've talked about that on other boards that both should have a "lifeline" package which is just a set of locals from either your area or if no channels, nearest city. This should be CBC, CTV, Global, E!, A, City & SRC...if there are extras like in TO then they get more. Should cost like 8-10 bucks and if you want anything else, then you have to get the essentials
but on the + side, Starchoice gives you TSN in the basic package
melgarga said:
That's funny, but true. A friend of mine found out his wife was cheating on him because she was talking to her boyfriend on the cordless phone one night when he happened to be in the bedroom and he heard the entire conversation over the baby monitor that she had installed to listen in on their baby. Talk about ironic. lol
That's funny, but true. A friend of mine found out his wife was cheating on him because she was talking to her boyfriend on the cordless phone one night when he happened to be in the bedroom and he heard the entire conversation over the baby monitor that she had installed to listen in on their baby. Talk about ironic. lol
Iceberg said:
It's been awhile since I canceled my bell sub, but it had went up to about $20 from $12 in one jump for just the locals and that's when I decided to get rid of bell.
actually its 30+ for the basic package
It's been awhile since I canceled my bell sub, but it had went up to about $20 from $12 in one jump for just the locals and that's when I decided to get rid of bell.
- Status
Similar threads
