Your forum username:
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up


    Welcome to Sky User - The Unofficial Support Forum for everything Sky! - Proudly helping over 63k members.


    Advertisement

    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
    Results 11 to 20 of 30
    Like Tree5Likes

    Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

    This is a discussion on Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month within the Sky news and announcements forums, part of the SkyUser Announcements category; Part of the Inside Out report has made it onto You Tube:...

    1. #11
      seawright's Avatar
      seawright is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: 02392
      Broadband ISP: Other ISP
      Router: Non Sky Router
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Jul 2012
      Posts
      2,919
      Thanks
      60
      Thanked 319 Times in 310 Posts

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      Part of the Inside Out report has made it onto You Tube:


    2. Advertisement
    3. #12
      Scubbie's Avatar
      Scubbie is offline Sky User Moderator
      Exchange: 02392
      Broadband ISP: Sky Fibre Unlimited Pro
      Router: Sky Hub SR101
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Mar 2010
      Location
      Near Portsmouth
      Posts
      26,836
      Thanks
      764
      Thanked 2,137 Times in 2,016 Posts

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      Not everyone likes the Murdoch empire. The phone hacking scandal damaged his reputation in a big way, especially as it seems that it happened in the USA as well.

      The fact is that the Murdoch Empire control a huge amount of media outlets across the globe and has the ability to rake in lots of money by selling their own content to their own stations in different countries.

      No one is forcing me to watch Sky's channels. I could simply just have Freeview or Freesat. It is my choice.

      I used to subscribe in the 90s. I then left the country for a while and when I returned I didn't readily subscribe to Sky as I needed my money for other things.

      There are more important things in life than getting a pirate card and paying someone as much as 10 per month.

      Sky Fibre Unlimited Pro: Connected at 80,000 kbps / 20,000 kbps
      Previous ADSL2+ Speed 19999 kbps 1153 kbps, Line Attenuation 17.5 db 6.9 db, Noise Margin 7.5 dB 8.7 dB
      Speedtest: 17.15MB/s 0.97Mb/s Ping 31 ms

    4. #13
      mattylad's Avatar
      mattylad is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: LCROSS
      Broadband ISP: Max
      Router: Sky Hub SR101
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Location
      Lancashire
      Posts
      320
      Thanks
      22
      Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      I wonder what the number 1 google search is in the Uk now?

    5. #14
      dewdude's Avatar
      dewdude is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: Verizon
      Broadband ISP: Verizon FiOS (Fibre)
      Router: Non Sky Router
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Feb 2014
      Location
      Manassas, VA - USA
      Posts
      88
      Thanks
      5
      Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
      Blog Entries
      1

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      There is a large difference between posting an article and discussing aspects of it and promoting use of whatever's being discussed. I don't see at any place where any-one has promoted or given advice for use of things like this. I think a lot of it boils down to people love getting something for free, especially if it's getting something over on the system. Much in the same way cable/satellite piracy has been a constant battle over here; I'm sure it exists in every other part of the world in some form. Everyone (myself included) have given generic anecdotes and thoughts/opinions on the situation. Big difference from someone coming on here going "you guys are stupid! you should use card sharing! here's how!". But even if things were considered a "better value", you'd STILL have people out there trying to get it for nothing "because they can". Maybe the mentality is different over here...people love taking advantage of things here. But I have to feel the "something for nothing" mentality is universal, some people are willing to go to extremes.

      The BBC were practically advertising for the dodgy boxes to anyone who didn't know about them before.


      It's the same thing over here. They're always reporting things on local news over here as an investigative report that practically tells you exactly how to participate in just about anything. In fact, when I was working with kids; a lot of the "bad-habits" and dangerous stuff they picked up from the news. I remember a few years ago they were making a big deal about kids "smoking" Pixie Stix (I'm assuming you have those other there). Basically inhaling the powder and exhaling it to mimic smoking. I'd never seen anyone do this, ever. Not when I was growing up and not with the kids I worked with. Soon as that news report ran....all the kids started trying to smoke Pixie Stix. They complain about tv and movies being impressionable...no one ever thinks about how much stuff the news brings to light while simultaneously showing you how it's done. Of course, they also have a habit of dragging up old "trends" as "current news you must know about". I think a prime example of stupidity from our local Fox affiliate had someone from a consumer panel warning people about finding salmonella and other containments in chicken if it wasn't properly cooked. We know this...I knew this growing up; the issue was they were presenting it as if they'd just discovered it. I had always enjoyed BBC's News (although it was just World Service) and figured they had more class than that; but I guess they do stupid reports on stuff that gives people instructions as well.

      No need for expensive spacey stuff anymore


      I will say that from one perspective, it is cheaper to run a satellite based distribution system. Granted you shell out a lot for satellites/transponder space/uplink facilities; you're able to cover a much larger geographic area without expensive infrastructure costs and larger footprints. I know in the US, good internet speed seems to be a rarity; with many people living in rural areas limited to dialup or satellite-relayed internet. Most of those people live in areas where an aerial is useless as well; so satellite is the only option for *any* TV. Although satellites do have a life-span, and replacing them tends to be costly. It may not actually be saving any money; it mostly allows them to cover a larger area quickly and easily. Plus, I'm sure there's the aspect of competition and people wanting something because it's different. I do know streaming TV over the internet coming from a provider has been very slow to kick off. I can get a few channels directly from my TV provider on the road, but the majority of them are only available on the "local network" where they can verify you're actually at home. IPTV seems to be catching up, though that's not really "the internet" as much as it is multicast UDP streams running in private IP space. But I know at least over here, most providers aren't too excited about streaming online due to the fact that comes with additional transmission fees they don't want to pay.

      As for value for money, this is down to personal interpretation.


      I'll admit, from what I've seen from Sky I personally think it's a great value. If anything, I think our TV system over here has given us the shaft as it's more expensive and no where near as organized. Prime example would be freesat/freeview. You guys get something like 60 channels over freeview and I don't know how many extra on freesat. You guys basically have what we could consider "basic cable" available at no monthly fee. From some aspects, when you've got that kind of programming available for nothing; paying for Sky or Virgin would seem a bit excessive. Over here, our "free TV" kind of sucks. You're at the mercy at what ever commercial broadcasters you can pick up and the mercy of whatever they're running. But I could probably sit and compare FreeView/FreeSat to our unbranded ATSC digital system for another five minutes; let's just say compared to FreeView, it's a joke.

      I got into a discussion with a friend of mine about the cost of Sky vs what most providers "across the pond" run. He had said that Sky is "about the most expensive thing you can get if you add everything". So I sat and worked a lot of this out. The big Sky package is what, about 64 or so according to the website. I don't know if that's a promotional rate and if it jumps up; but I worked this out to be about $105 in US currency. I also believe (from what I can tell) that Sky is the only prevailing DTH satellite system over there. I suppose I could be fair and look up the prices of various cable systems over there; but as we were discussing satellite I didn't.

      Compare that with here. We are lucky in that we have two DTH satellite services, DirecTV and DishNetwork; although the competition doesn't do much to help prices. You can get the "everything" package from DirecTV for around $94(57)/month, that's all the movies and sports channels included. You might be thinking "that's cheap!", but there's a catch. That price is only for the first 12-months of a 24-month commitment; the last 12-months it's priced at $129(78)/month. It's probably barely 300 channels total. Dish Network runs the same scheme, a very similar promotional rate for a year, then the really high rate for a year. The actual price difference between the two is about $2. Unlike over there where you'll have all your variations of BBC/iTV available on satellite...there are areas here which don't get "local channel" coverage from satellite...leaving them without any kind of national networks at all; and the laws prohibit importing channels from another area by any other means than an aerial. Now our satellite providers are strictly that, satellite TV providers. They do partner with other companies to offer things like broadband; and occasionally you'll see DirecTV used as a bundle deal in some providers...but they both pretty much do one thing, provide satellite TV.

      In reality, for strictly satellite TV, Sky is a better value than what we get over here. Things change when you get in to cable and fibre, especially cable. They have so many different package configurations it's confusing. Two packages can have the same price...one offers twice as many channels and slower internet than another. I've got fibre...and it by far is one of the most expensive...I think I'm paying close to $219/month for TV/phone/internet...but I'm also paying for six cable boxes, a dvr, and two movie packages that weren't part of my default lineup.

      I mean, I honestly can't see the desire to steal service when you've got Freeview and Freesat...then again; I'm used to an entirely different system where money was everything and only bare minimum is free...if you can pick it up.

    6. #15
      Scubbie's Avatar
      Scubbie is offline Sky User Moderator
      Exchange: 02392
      Broadband ISP: Sky Fibre Unlimited Pro
      Router: Sky Hub SR101
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Mar 2010
      Location
      Near Portsmouth
      Posts
      26,836
      Thanks
      764
      Thanked 2,137 Times in 2,016 Posts

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      Monthly fee?

      Try explaining that to the TV Licensing people.

      If you don't get one they give you a criminal conviction.

      As for content, much of ours is from the USA, so I am surprised that you think it is better.

      One thing that I am noticing at the moment is just ow much content isn't recorded in 1080. There is a huge amount of content which appears to be recorded in 720p from the USA. Whilst it is HD, it isn't as good as 1080i or 1080p videos.

      Sky Fibre Unlimited Pro: Connected at 80,000 kbps / 20,000 kbps
      Previous ADSL2+ Speed 19999 kbps 1153 kbps, Line Attenuation 17.5 db 6.9 db, Noise Margin 7.5 dB 8.7 dB
      Speedtest: 17.15MB/s 0.97Mb/s Ping 31 ms

    7. #16
      dewdude's Avatar
      dewdude is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: Verizon
      Broadband ISP: Verizon FiOS (Fibre)
      Router: Non Sky Router
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Feb 2014
      Location
      Manassas, VA - USA
      Posts
      88
      Thanks
      5
      Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
      Blog Entries
      1

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      Monthly fee?

      Try explaining that to the TV Licensing people.


      D'OH!

      You're right, I forgot to take in to account the whole license thing, if the 149.50 figure I found is correct, well...that's still not a bad deal for Freeview or Freesat. If I were to put an aerial up here, I'd get about 30 channels; and they're not even that great. 7 "network" channels and a smattering of ethnic/niche programming. Actually, if I were to put one up I couldn't hit the terrestrial towers well due to the large number of trees causing multipath problems with the 8VSB modulation we use. It's also my understanding if you discontinue your Sky service, you can revert your card to get the FTA/FTV content. There's no such concept of that over here. In fact, if you have cable or satellite you're paying to get your local area broadcasts in to you, twice technically. Service providers have to pay a retransmission fee to the broadcaster, which in turn gets rolled in to the cost of your programming. Cable rolls it in to your basic package, or you can alternatively get a special package that covers just the local stuff you'd get with an aerial for about $12/month. When satellite first started offering local channels here; they were a separate add-on package you had to pay for in addition to a "local channel service fee". They dropped that tactic and just rolled the prices in to the packages; but they still have to pay the local to carry the signal. Now, I'm making an assumption that channels available FTA/FTV over there haven't suffered the same fate as local broadcasts over here; you're paying for something that's being provided free. So while the free channels show up as "part" of a Sky package, they're not being directly figured in to the cost of a monthly package. I think about $7 of my monthly TV bill basically goes directly to local broadcasters simply because I choose to have a TV provider and not deal with an aerial. $5.50 alone goes to ESPN. Again, I'm making assumptions and for all I know Sky could have to pay retransmit fees to have it on the Sky EPG.

      As for content, much of ours is from the USA, so I am surprised that you think it is better.


      Honestly, I was quite shocked the first time I flipped through the guide on Sky and saw the majority of stuff was US programming on versions of the same channels. That being said, commercial TV over here is a pretty painful thing to watch. Tons more advertisements, tons more censorship, and even among the selection of channels there's not a whole lot of variety. It's not common for channels to run episode after episode of the same show for hours on end. The selection of stuff on isn't nearly as great as what I've seen on Sky. I fully believe there are more channels on Sky (not accounting the timeshifts) than even available on here, and there's a wider selection. Not to mention shows don't seem to be as "network locked" as they are over here, so they air more often on different channels. I can't say I've watched all that much British-originated programming, and with the way shows seem to be produced over there I can only imagine you'd have to import programming. But I still stand a much larger chance of finding something that interests me flipping through the guide for Sky than I would my own service, if you're only taking in to account linear channels. Then again there's the part of me that loves flipping on South Park and watching it without all the bleeps.

      Then again, I've only seen what's on at odd times..the 5 hour time difference means I'm usually watching what's on after 5pm...usually later. There have been evenings I didn't flip on Sky till it was 2am over there. It gets really thin around that hour...but the times I've watched in the evenings there's been a ton of stuff on. Yesterday I hooked my laptop up to my big-screen so I could watch Magnum P.I.; because no one shows it here anymore. Star Trek: TOS and Voyager are in the same boat of getting no airplay over here anymore; and if it wasn't for BBC America showing TNG, that wouldn't be on anymore either. So, yes...you've got a lot of American programming...but you've got a lot of channels to fill so the selection is great. I'm also discovering a lot of really great shows that never got over here.

      One thing that I am noticing at the moment is just ow much content isn't recorded in 1080. There is a huge amount of content which appears to be recorded in 720p from the USA. Whilst it is HD, it isn't as good as 1080i or 1080p videos.


      I have no idea what you guys are recording your video in over there. I had kind of thought that when everything went digital, this whole idea of different video standards across the world would cease to exist since we weren't relying on line frequency to drive a CRT and color wasn't encoded using analog techniques. Still, the 50hz/60hz ordeal still exists. I'm sure there's a logical backwards compatibility reason....but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense when computers can convert that digital signal to whatever you need much easier than during the analog days. I'm pretty sure most of our stuff is filmed in some form of 1080p...or even on traditional film. Networks here are kind of split as to what resolution they use, some use 1080i, some use 720p, shows go through conversion when sent to syndication. It's kind of a mess. As to why it looks 720p over there...I don't know. Maybe that's all networks/producers are exporting; maybe they do have to convert the framerate and drop it down in quality.

      However, I'm far from qualified to say anything about picture quality. The video stream I get from the Slingbox is a H264 format running at 1280x544 if I feed it 1080i, 1280x720 if I feed it 720p. The frame-rate always seems to stay the same 25fps, even though it should be 50 for progressive content. Unless everything over there is using progressive-segmented-frame, which means I'd gain nothing. And even though 720p streams me a higher resolution; I get much crisper video when feeding it 1080i..making me wonder if the resolution I'm being quoted is incorrect and it's showing both fields..but it still doesn't explain the strange resolution numbers. I just leave it in 1080i and be glad it's no longer getting fed the standard 576i PAL from composite.....dot-crawl city! Of course, the quality of video you'll get over here depends on how many HD channels the cable company is trying to mux together. Normal 1080i resolution is set at 1920x1080, that's part of the ATSC standard. Most cable/satellite companies operate at 1440x1080 or even 1280x1080 to save space. Older HD cameras only did 1440x1080 anyway.


    8. #17
      Saturday's Avatar
      Saturday is offline Sky User Super Mod
      Exchange:
      Broadband ISP: Sky Broadband Unlimited Pro
      Router: Sky Hub SR102
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Posts
      6,083
      Thanks
      20
      Thanked 51 Times in 47 Posts

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      Quote Originally Posted by dewdude View Post
      I'm making assumptions and for all I know Sky could have to pay retransmit fees to have it on the Sky EPG.
      Actually it's sort of the other way round.

      BSkyB (Sky) owns a small number of the channels, the EPG, billing systems etc. The other channel owners (including the BBC) pay Sky very substantial sums for a slot in the EPG and in many instances to use BSkyB's associated infrastructure. Sky has no control over whether a channel can go on the EPG and this "open access" is part of their operating licence from Ofcom, the regulatory body responsible for broadcasting in the UK. Any channel which buys carriage on an appropriate satellite beam (satellites aren't owned by Sky, they lease transponders) is guaranteed access to EPG for a fee ranging between 15k - 100+K depending on various factors such as whether the channel is encrypted, EPG position* etc. Sky has no say on what content 3rd party channels carry or indeed what quality they are transmitted in. Hence the plethora of Shopping and Religious channels.

      *even EPG position isn't entirely up to Sky. Legislation ensures that the prime national channels (BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, C4, C5) get the first slot positions.

    9. The Following User Says Thank You to Saturday For This Useful Post:

      dewdude (12-02-14)

    10. #18
      Scubbie's Avatar
      Scubbie is offline Sky User Moderator
      Exchange: 02392
      Broadband ISP: Sky Fibre Unlimited Pro
      Router: Sky Hub SR101
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Mar 2010
      Location
      Near Portsmouth
      Posts
      26,836
      Thanks
      764
      Thanked 2,137 Times in 2,016 Posts

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      Each broadcaster will use their own compression standard for broadcasting. What I a seeing may well be that, rather that the recording quality.

      However I can look at content such as Hawaii Five-O and Deal or No Deal and see a striking difference between them.

      Previously on my 40 " TV I didn't notice it so much. On my ne TV I do notice it more.

      If you compare the facial hair between the characters on each, as well as the hair on the head, then you'll get a clearer idea of what I am seeing.

      Sky Fibre Unlimited Pro: Connected at 80,000 kbps / 20,000 kbps
      Previous ADSL2+ Speed 19999 kbps 1153 kbps, Line Attenuation 17.5 db 6.9 db, Noise Margin 7.5 dB 8.7 dB
      Speedtest: 17.15MB/s 0.97Mb/s Ping 31 ms

    11. #19
      mickr's Avatar
      mickr is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: Verwood
      Broadband ISP: Sky Unlimited
      Router: Sky Hub SR101
      Sky TV: Sky+
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Posts
      177
      Thanks
      0
      Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      I must admit to using programed cards or software on a linux receiver to watch some foreign channels in the past. Those days have now gone due to encryption changes which have not been hacked. I believe you can get some cards to work on Linux receivers, but the content is streamed from servers in most cases.
      I have been with sky from the early days, the price goes up but the content does not improve. They add new channels but very little new content, they just show move the programmes round from channel to channel. There are a lot of shopping and religious channels as already stated by other members. The amount of repeats as increase has, as the amount of cheap American rubbish. why sky probably don't have control over all of what is shown, they don't exactly offer you a good deal by charging you extra for every thing else. Hd channels extra, multiroom extra, certainly not worth what they charge. The film channels are also over priced considering the amount of repeats and again moving the same films from channel to channel. They offer great deals to new customers but very rarely offer there long standing customers a good deal.
      I also have my phone and internet with sky which I have been quite happy with. But I now understand that they have stopped the discount on line rental if you pay up front, Yet another way to get more money out of you. I think sky should have a good look at what they charge for certain services and give there loyal customers a better deal

      Mickr

    12. #20
      dewdude's Avatar
      dewdude is offline Sky User Member
      Exchange: Verizon
      Broadband ISP: Verizon FiOS (Fibre)
      Router: Non Sky Router
      Sky TV: Sky+HD box
      Join Date
      Feb 2014
      Location
      Manassas, VA - USA
      Posts
      88
      Thanks
      5
      Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
      Blog Entries
      1

      Re: Pirated Sky TV sold for 10 a month

      Actually it's sort of the other way round.


      That just blew my mind. All of it, completely blew my mind. That seems to be the complete polar opposite of how it works here. TV providers pretty much have to pay a fee to each broadcaster for each channel. Some will bundle channels together for a provider; but they're the ones having to shell out. I do believe there are a few religious and shopping channels that are on every system due to lack of a retransmit fee. But we do have a number of shopping and religious channels here. Same deal; each channel owner is responsible for the content of their channel, the service providers have no say. They are however able to sell advertising space of their own over advertising space of other channels; which is why you'll get local ads on a cable channel. But it's also damaging the model of having advertisers support a large chunk, especially with the local network broadcasters. Their model used to be they provided a signal for free and advertisers were the income revenue from it. But now they're more worried about getting that $1 per subscriber they don't even care about actual advertising. Rates have dropped because advertisers aren't guaranteed their ad won't be rubbed-out by a cable company ad; making them more and more concerned about retransmission fees. I have, in the past, lost national network coverage because the local channel refused to come to an agreement with the satellite provider. And you completely lose network coverage, they're not allowed to pump a signal in from else where.

      satellites aren't owned by Sky, they lease transponders


      Ahh. Both DirecTV and DishNetwork over here own their own satellites that are exclusively used for their service. I think DishNet conforms to some of the DVB standard; though with the encryption it won't do anything. DirecTV uses their own format all together. There's no open-access or compatibility between them. A few DTH systems over here that tried inthe early 90s relied on rented/leased transponders...they soon went under because the prices of transponders kept going up. Of course just about anybody with the money for a satellite and the FCC license can stick one up in orbit and beam stuff down.

      even EPG position isn't entirely up to Sky. Legislation ensures that the prime national channels (BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, C4, C5) get the first slot positions.


      Most of the channel numbers I grew up knowing the national networks for aren't of any use anymore. Providers try to keep them in the original area, but they're under no obligation to and can move the channel assignments wherever.

      Each broadcaster will use their own compression standard for broadcasting. What I a seeing may well be that, rather that the recording quality.


      I'm pretty sure in Hollywood, anything done not on film is going to be shot in 1080p by this point; if not more. Framerates can be different due to things like progressive-segemented-frame...things like soap operas are filmed at 30fps PsF to make it have a "film look". But generally they film it in decent quality.

      However I can look at content such as Hawaii Five-O and Deal or No Deal and see a striking difference between them.


      Well, simple explanation for that. The new HAwaii Five-O is done on film or with an HD camera; the original Hawaii Five-O was done to film, so they can retransfer the film in high def. Our Deal or No Deal with Howie Mandell; that was pre-HD and shot in 480i. It originally aired here from 05 to 09. One thing you have to realize is while the majority of our content (finally) has gone HD; there's still a number of things out there not being shot in widescreen or HD. It's pretty rare, but it does happen. It took networks a better part of the first decade of the millennium to get on board with HD, a LOT of prime-time shows were done in SD up till a couple years ago. I didn't go HD till I got fiber 4 years ago because it just wasn't worth it for a while.

      If you compare the facial hair between the characters on each, as well as the hair on the head, then you'll get a clearer idea of what I am seeing.


      Wait, you've got to be talking about a different Deal or No Deal. Howie Mandell has no hair left on his head. :P

      As I said, I'm in no condition to make judgement of quality of stuff on Sky. While I can tell an SD channel from an HD channel because the SD will look a bit softer...I don't think I could tell anything beyond that. It was hard when looking at the composite feed since there's such little resolution and even your SD Channels run 16:9 (only very rarely do any SD channels run things in 16:9, even then you have to override the automatic aspect correction which changes all SD content to 4:3); but I am able to tell a bit of difference between an HD and SD channel; I think that's probably about all I can identify...I wouldn't be able to tell between 720p or 1080i though

      They add new channels but very little new content, they just show move the programmes round from channel to channel.


      It similar here in regards to adding new content. Most providers rarely add any new channels and most of the time, they're taking channels away from subscribers without adjusting the package cost. As far as moving the programmes; as one stated Sky doesn't have any control over channels they don't own, so you can't blame sky because say...channels decided to switch.

      Of course, quite the opposite has happened in terms of channels. If anything, providers are carrying fewer and fewer channels while raising prices. I lucky haven't lost any on my provider...but I know every other week a satellite company is losing a channel.

      There are a lot of shopping and religious channels as already stated by other members.


      While I do believe I saw more of both on Sky; we also have our own infectious brand of shopping and religious channels on every system. Most of those however, have no retransmit fee. Cable companies here love no fee channels as it bulks up the numbers; so they generally don't care what it is as long as it allows them to say they carry more channels. They'll enjoy attracting a few more people wanting this niche programming, which they'll enjoy because of money.

      You guys also have gambling channels where you can win money; yeah...we have nothing like that is gambling is illegal in most areas unless tightly regulated.

      The amount of repeats as increase has, as the amount of cheap American rubbish.


      There's entirely too much cheap American rubbish on TV here too (wait a tick.) No, the quality of American programming has gotten really pathetic in the last 10 years. It's all reality shows that don't really cover reality because they're cheaper to produce. When garbage like Duck Dynasty, Dance Moms, Survivor, etc are breaking viewer numbers I can only stand there and feel ashamed. The quality of our TV programming may or may not have been very good in the eyes of the rest of the world; I'm just kind of used to it because it's what I grew up with. But it's a strictly commercial driven enterprise here. Networks only want to show what will put eyes on the screen and sell advertising. They also want content that costs them next to nothing to produce. So, they don't want to produce quality content; just whatever will let them make a couple million an airing. I'm also ashamed of the rest of the population for watching this crap and making it popular. I never realized just how stupid my country was till someone came out with reality TV, then I realized they're all a bunch of blithering idiots and the only sense of taste they have is in their mouth.

      Yeah, we have a few shows that aren't horrible....but most of the garbage these days are "reality" shows that cost next to nothing to produce...and some of the sitcoms we've come out with haven't been that funny. I mean, the quality of our programming is dictated by what people will watch...and apparently everyone enjoys watching absolute garbage that's not even close to the truth.

      I guess you could directly blame us for all the rubbish that's being imported over there; well, it's not my fault..I never watched any of that crap.

      they don't exactly offer you a good deal by charging you extra for every thing else. Hd channels extra, multiroom extra


      It's the same thing over here for the most part. Each provider will nickel-and-dime you to death. I don't think they charge for HD channels anymore; they used to, but I think it's all rolled in to the package now. But you have to pay a monthly fee for each box, the amount depends on the type of box; you have to pay for a DVR, pay more for multiroom DVR, any other hardware in your house (like your modem/router)...those all have a monthly fee. I right now have to pay $10/month for each standard HD box I have (4), plus an additional $20 for multi-room DVR, $9 for the router...of course then there's taxes....which I currently pay three times on my service (state sales tax, state communications tax, emerengcy/911 tax), I also have to pay a "right-of-way use" fee...because usually the lines are shared with the electric company right-of-way; and they have to pay for that. It's about $12 alone in taxes and an additional $4 in regulatory fees. It's better than a few years ago...before the two extra taxes you used to have to pay a "franchise" fee.

      They offer great deals to new customers but very rarely offer there long standing customers a good deal.


      Well, good to know that's universal. All the providers here offer some very attractive deals to "new" customers, and most of them are for new customers only. There are some that will give a good deal to a returning customer. There were a few times I bounced between satellite providers and got the "new customer promotion".

     

     
    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  
    SkyUser - Copyright © 2006-2014. SatDish and NewsreadeR | SkyUser is in no way affiliated with Sky Broadband / BSkyB
    RIPA NOTICE: NO CONSENT IS GIVEN FOR INTERCEPTION OF PAGE TRANSMISSION | SEO by vBSEO