How about this for radical

I don't attribute any anthropomorphic characteristics to Murdoch's corporation, Rolf, just to the man himself. He has a very 'hands-on' management style and his employees, when told to jump may, if they're very bold, have the temerity to ask how high. His record shows that he sacks those people who disagree with him and is not above a bit of nepotism when it comes to appointing family members to run his subsidiaries.

Make no mistake, Murdoch's courtship of the Thatcher Government and, more lately, Blair's supine sycophants demonstrate that he's in the business for more than just money. Just ask yourself why he's recently stated that he intends to use his newspaper empire to oppose Britain's joining the Euro.

And as for monopolies! What about the Murdoch companies' new stake in terrestrial digital tv and the agreement on broadcast rights for League football? And then there's the rest of Europe. Will, as seems likely, Canal+ be his next victim?

You're right about the man in the street, though. And that's why we ought to be seriously concerned about the prospect of the dissemination of information being in the hands of one man, one family or even one corpporation. History is littered with examples of the misery caused by tyrants, politicans, press barons, religious leaders and the like, who have sought to control what 'the masses' see, hear and, ultimately, think.

I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean that they're not out to get me! Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom; if we go the way of the man on the Clapham Omnibus, we'll wake up one morning really believing that Murdoch has our best interests at heart - or even that a Big Mac is a wholesome meal. By comparison to which, Orwell's vision of a totalitarian society will appear very attractive.

I'm off to France at the end of next week. Almost four weeks of eating and drinking too much but, more importantly, no television, no newspapers and no radio. Perhaps I'll return with a less jaundiced view. But I doubt it.

wolsty

:+
 
Hmmm...Seems to be a bit my way of thinking
About canal+
>Will as seems likely that Canal+ will be his next victim? <
I have heard on the grape vine that after all this hacking going on there planing
A new type of = phone order authentication, & direct download of Sat to receiver Encrypted programs .
and as for....
>Can't do that Jon, don't you think they'd have tried it before? They have squeezed all of the analogue channels in that the network will take. <
I believe that the opposite was quoted in a TV traders magazine in around since the late 70s.
( sound sub-carrier-wave interference is the hard part )
but then it's strange how the Multiplex at a fare lower broadcast watt's out put power has managed to squeeze it's self in there between the high power analog transmitters.
but yes ...re,tuning of all the analog channels would cause some bad news for fellow TV engineers.
...digitl is here...just imagine the old scrap analog TV mountain when analog transmitters go off
Respect ...Jon
 
The digital multiplexes can be fitted more closely together and in between the analogue signals, as I believe they do not suffer from the secondary harmonics that the analogue signals fall victim to.

Whether we like it or not, analogue will be going, perhaps not as quickly as the government would like though.

There'll still be a use for all of these analogue TVs though, as it would appear that the TV manufacturing industry are reluctant to press ahaed with digital only receivers.

Rolf
 
> The digital multiplexes can be fitted more closely together and in between the analogue signals < ...personally I think it's the opposite.
with all that picture lock up as far as I know It's all in the lower O/P watt's and the band spread used..
if thaw turned up the power on multiplex ,analog will suffer...
..still just imagine with the closing down of analog.
it will pave the way for pirate TV channels !.
& at the start of the news of the closing down of analog TV I herd the government were intending to sell off the vacated frequency's

Jon
 
Hmmmm

Pirate TV channels

Will the broadcasters mind if we hack into them ?
 
I don't think that anyone would mind
Channel Hopper ....not at all !
pirate TV should be free.
It temps me to get in there.
.with a ,unused, by multiplex free channel and a home made TV transmitter
Ho yes...
Bering in mind it would knead to be in ..my.. or anyone's areas - A -B - C&D aerial's grope
and in the center of one of channels frequency's
I.E. ( 21 -- 69 )and no fine tune required for ease of modern TV tuning for anyone to view.

well I bet it's going to happen in some big town's anyway
with the big analog switch off just think of it now...
..I.E. Bradford UK
(Hay man welcome to raster TV man)

Jon
 
So simply a black screen then !
 
More likely a smokey picture. :)

Rolf
 
Pirate TV..... bugger me... I almost forgot. > Mr. Murdoch and Sky's MTV <
Hay - Up can't have aney opposition to my pay music channels even if they are only Reggie Music !
best try to bye it up ! :-(

respect Jon
 
Originally posted by englishman64
You are spot on Too old.
I started with BSkyB with them old squarial dishes years ago.
Sky 1 and Sky Sports were free then.
Over the years the monthy cost has gone up and up and the annoying this is the gullible British Public pay it.
Sk* even have the cheek to put adverts on all their pay channels too.
I know of loads of people who went with the On-digital Scam not just to save money (although that was a major factor) but also because Sk* have screwed them over the years.
They saw it as an opportunity to 'get their own back'
It's amazing how many normally 'law abiding' people were happy to 'stick it up Sk*' with dodgy On-dig boxes.
Sk* wont let you choose exactly what channels you want either.
It's a pity all Sk* subscribers don't protest and cease their subscriptions but then again as I said earlier the public just put up with it !

Not everybody is a mug. I cancelled my sky subscription years ago when they started charging for the boxing. I was paying the full package and had looked forward to watching the Tyson Bruno fight. When I found out it was £10.00 to watch it I told them to stick it up their ars*. They would not drop the £10.00 charge. I have never had sky since and never will. Robbing Bast*rds.
If everybody did this they would almost give it away. I believe most of it is sh*t anyway.


:D :D :D :D :D
 
without wishing to upset my fellow board members I can`t understand the mentality of people who think sky is poor value.
i think its outstanding value, only underlined by the pitiful attempts by cable and ITV digi to compete with them.

they sunk their money in a longtime ago, they made and still make huge losses, they give away free equipment worth £200, they are putting some of their flagship channels on the new digital set up for free, their sport coverage is superb (puts BBC to shame) what more can they do?

the problem is that the `great` british public seem to think, for some reason, that all telly should be free!

how many people spend £4 a day on ciggies or catch a taxi to town for £3 because they can`t be bothered to walk or get the bus? Rent a video for one day and you`ll pay £3 for it.
Is £9.50 a week really that much?
 
As you know BRD, although the £38 package to which I was subscribing turned out to be too much for me to justify. I too believe that quality free tv with the variety that people these days expect, is a pipe dream, advertsing alone cannot fund it.

As you so rightly say, Sky do not make a profit, they are are obviously forcasting a date at which they will turn to profit, but I would assume that they are looking at an optimum subscriber base, before cutting off some of the incentive schemes.

The biggest concern that I have, is the potential migration of presently inclusive channels over to PPV or higher rate packages, once their optimum subscriber base has been reached.
 
Everyone has an opinion on the merits and demerits of Sky TV and that's what makes this site so interesting. I gave mine some time ago in this particular thread. The only thing I can add at the moment is that those people with 'dodgy' on-digital boxes, far from causing Sky a problem, helped in the demise of ITV Digital through lost subscriptions, resulting eventually in an overnight increase in Sky's customer database.

Jimbo

I edited this to make it clear that I was not moralising but stating one of the facts put forward by the Carlton/Granada consortium about the demise.

Jimbo ;)
 
I don't really agree with that Jimbo, I think that bad management and paying unrealistic amounts of money for Nationwide football had much more to do with it. I think that the piracy problem was made to look far worse than it was to divert attention away from the real problems.

pixey
 
HOW I CONNED THE WESTERN WORLD.

No disrespect to anyone but after reading some of your threads, I felt I had to sort of straighten out a few points and also remind some of my past exploits on the British Public.
My plan went like this; first I introduced a cable channel in Holland called SLY and this was first introduced in South Limburg…..we gave it to the people as both a tester and a bonus freebie channel with two other channels. As long as we gave it free, then we could withdraw it at any time in the future(we did three years later without warning).
Shortly after this we started a FREE satellite channel(which we told everybody at the time, it would ALWAYS be FREE.) This too we named SLY.
The take-up of satellite dishes and equipment was amazing, so we introduced a scheme called Pioneer…but charged a tiny fee, the take-up slowed down but as more people heard about this new television system from outer space(still don’t know why we pay for pictures and sound from outer space???) the take-up snowballed so much we decided to reach for the sky(ahem!).
We gave the British(and elsewhere) as much so called quality(?!$%?) channels as we could dig up from everywhere…..why we even introduced a channel where we show repeats of OLD BBC and ITV programs….and even although the public had already paid for them via their TV licence we got them to pay again, and again,and again!
We then decided how we should pickpocket the couch potato’s…so PPV with adverts(which pay for the PPV alone) was introduced…this British Public, what a lot of idiots they are, we thought! Football, yes! That’s the way to go next…and yes! PPV too….who cares if the Beeb or ITV have been showing them for years free.
Money,Money,Money…..how can we get more of their Money??? Brainwave…we introduce new boxes..slow but in stealth for the long term, and if we can get this one out we have got it made….we bring out boxes with X amount of Gbs. And make them buy this with a FEE to watch their own box, which they have bought, and make the box able to copy X amount of programs, BUT once they start to view it and don’t finish it….the box will self erase….they will surely pay for this again in the future…..yes, this has got to be the daddy of them all!!!
I really think I will be entitled to go down in history as the biggest con merchant of all time……maybe it’s because I am doing it on-mass rather than flim-flamming individual people…..or is it because I have so much cash; WHO CARES ANYWAY???
Regards Rupert the Robber
 
LOL, I suppose that's the problem when boredom meets bandwidth. ;)
 
Originally posted by rupert the robber
HOW I CONNED THE WESTERN WORLD.

No disrespect to anyone but after reading some of your threads, I felt I had to sort of straighten out a few points and also remind some of my past exploits on the British Public.
My plan went like this; first I introduced a cable channel in Holland called SLY and this was first introduced in South Limburg…..we gave it to the people as both a tester and a bonus freebie channel with two other channels. As long as we gave it free, then we could withdraw it at any time in the future(we did three years later without warning).
Shortly after this we started a FREE satellite channel(which we told everybody at the time, it would ALWAYS be FREE.) This too we named SLY.
The take-up of satellite dishes and equipment was amazing, so we introduced a scheme called Pioneer…but charged a tiny fee, the take-up slowed down but as more people heard about this new television system from outer space(still don’t know why we pay for pictures and sound from outer space???) the take-up snowballed so much we decided to reach for the sky(ahem!).
We gave the British(and elsewhere) as much so called quality(?!$%?) channels as we could dig up from everywhere…..why we even introduced a channel where we show repeats of OLD BBC and ITV programs….and even although the public had already paid for them via their TV licence we got them to pay again, and again,and again!
We then decided how we should pickpocket the couch potato’s…so PPV with adverts(which pay for the PPV alone) was introduced…this British Public, what a lot of idiots they are, we thought! Football, yes! That’s the way to go next…and yes! PPV too….who cares if the Beeb or ITV have been showing them for years free.
Money,Money,Money…..how can we get more of their Money??? Brainwave…we introduce new boxes..slow but in stealth for the long term, and if we can get this one out we have got it made….we bring out boxes with X amount of Gbs. And make them buy this with a FEE to watch their own box, which they have bought, and make the box able to copy X amount of programs, BUT once they start to view it and don’t finish it….the box will self erase….they will surely pay for this again in the future…..yes, this has got to be the daddy of them all!!!
I really think I will be entitled to go down in history as the biggest con merchant of all time……maybe it’s because I am doing it on-mass rather than flim-flamming individual people…..or is it because I have so much cash; WHO CARES ANYWAY???
Regards Rupert the Robber

and your point is?O-Ha
 
Rupert the robber

A good post...to much, Free TV, I suppose if there's a money maker to be had out there why not Exploit it !
 
I'm not so sure Pixey, if one had the time and was enough of an anorak, I'm sure that most of the points would be found to be wrong, or at best inaccurate. For example
why we even introduced a channel where we show repeats of OLD BBC and ITV programs?.and even although the public had already paid for them via their TV licence
Many BBC series and programmes are made by independent companies and bought by the BBC, none of the ITV programming is paid for by the licence fee, agreed that they are repeats, but if people didn't want to watch them the channels would not be viewed.
 
Back
Top