STVTalk.com

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I don't have Sky at all. I don't
approve of such an extreme monopoly, and I have heard some disturbing
stories of how the company treats their staff.

Sky treat their staff and business partners with the same contempt
that they have for paying customers. The same applies to all News Corp
companies.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

the dog from that film you saw wrote:

you're kind of suggesting that because nobody else has bothered,
this means sky should have theirs taken off them and have bits sold/given
away to others who are not willing to do what sky did

Perhaps you forget BSB?

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

John Porcella wrote:

But good luck to him anyway. At least he's British.

Why does being British make him any better (or worse)?

Murdoch started off on the wrong foot by being Australian. He then
became American which is a double error as not only are the Americans
worse than the Australians but he lost the last vestiges of
credibility by changing his nationality for business reasons.

This is a man who probably sold his grandmother before he left primary
school.

Murdoch has more say over who is in number 10 and the White House than
the voters do.
The fact that he has such influence in world-wide politics is nothing
short of horrifying.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

In article <fo3dp1lpl7kdnb3jukoc25ohsj6e1dkgil@4ax.com>,
Jomtien <jomtien@the.beach> wrote:

I don't have Sky at all. I don't
approve of such an extreme monopoly, and I have heard some disturbing
stories of how the company treats their staff.

Sky treat their staff and business partners with the same contempt
that they have for paying customers. The same applies to all News Corp
companies.

I only really knew one person who worked for them (in the UK) and he was
disabled. He was treated pretty well during his terminal illness.

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <Xns9725AC0C415EspamKillKillKillston@127.0.0.1>,
Stone Free
<spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritish@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jomtien <jomtien@the.beach> wrote in
news:dn3dp15nuomv8v8p4ga0703gfrl8o29i8f@4ax.com:

the dog from that film you saw wrote:

you're kind of suggesting that because nobody else has bothered,
this means sky should have theirs taken off them and have bits
sold/given away to others who are not willing to do what sky did

Perhaps you forget BSB?

I read it on one of the newsgroups, maybe even this one but I don't know
if it was an urban legend, that the reason British Satellite Broadcasting
(BSB) failed was that the government made certain technical requirements
for satellite broadcasters of British companys that BSB had to finance
which made setting up a satellite broadcaster more expensive to meet but
Sky not being a British company (at the time?) did not bother with.

I have tried before to Google it on Groups but as I saw it at the time
dejanews was running it may not be in the archive (or my search terms
aren't working)

AFAIR, it was that the satellite had to be purchased from a UK company.

--
Chairman - Nomad Theatre, East Horsley, Surrey KT24 6PF

www.nomadtheatre.com

Jomtien <jomtien@the.beach> wrote in
news:dn3dp15nuomv8v8p4ga0703gfrl8o29i8f@4ax.com:

the dog from that film you saw wrote:

you're kind of suggesting that because nobody else has bothered,
this means sky should have theirs taken off them and have bits
sold/given away to others who are not willing to do what sky did

Perhaps you forget BSB?

I read it on one of the newsgroups, maybe even this one but I don't know

if it was an urban legend, that the reason British Satellite Broadcasting
(BSB) failed was that the government made certain technical requirements
for satellite broadcasters of British companys that BSB had to finance
which made setting up a satellite broadcaster more expensive to meet but
Sky not being a British company (at the time?) did not bother with.

I have tried before to Google it on Groups but as I saw it at the time
dejanews was running it may not be in the archive (or my search terms
aren't working)


Peter

In article <4dd59e16abcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In article <Xns9725AC0C415EspamKillKillKillston@127.0.0.1>,
Stone Free
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPlease ... otmail.com> wrote:
Jomtien <jomtien@the.beach> wrote in
news:dn3dp15nuomv8v8p4ga0703gfrl8o29i8f@4ax.com:

the dog from that film you saw wrote:

you're kind of suggesting that because nobody else has bothered,
this means sky should have theirs taken off them and have bits
sold/given away to others who are not willing to do what sky did

Perhaps you forget BSB?

I read it on one of the newsgroups, maybe even this one but I don't know
if it was an urban legend, that the reason British Satellite Broadcasting
(BSB) failed was that the government made certain technical requirements
for satellite broadcasters of British companys that BSB had to finance
which made setting up a satellite broadcaster more expensive to meet but
Sky not being a British company (at the time?) did not bother with.

I have tried before to Google it on Groups but as I saw it at the time
dejanews was running it may not be in the archive (or my search terms
aren't working)

AFAIR, it was that the satellite had to be purchased from a UK company.

Wasn't there also the requirement that the receivers were flat against the
house wall ('squarials') and that Sky somehow got around that requirement?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article <Xns9725AC0C415EspamKillKillKillston@127.0.0.1>,
Stone Free
<spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritish@hotmail.com> wrote:

I read it on one of the newsgroups, maybe even this one but I don't know
if it was an urban legend, that the reason British Satellite
Broadcasting (BSB) failed was that the government made certain
technical requirements for satellite broadcasters of British companys
that BSB had to finance which made setting up a satellite broadcaster
more expensive to meet but Sky not being a British company (at the
time?) did not bother with.

Yes - they had to use an improved version of PAL which was IIRC unique in
the world therefore made for expensive hardware.

However, they were also incredibly extravagant with their premises etc -
mad for an embryo company.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"the dog from that film you saw"
<dsb@REMOVETHECAPITALSbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3vm3q9F16auf2U1@individual.net...

":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote in message
news:4395cf96$0$28945$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...


- anyone can start a service on
astra - just like sky did.


That is what I was suggesting!...



yes but.... you're kind of suggesting that because nobody else has
bothered,
this means sky should have theirs taken off them and have bits
sold/given
away to others who are not willing to do what sky did - they
invested a lot
of money and were in the red for a great many years.

ATM, BSkyB can hold other channels to ransom, they should either be
programme makers OR distributors, what you are suggesting is that the
BBC should (in effect) decide if all other channels can actual
broadcast just because the BBC were broadcasting first!

Stephen wrote:

What happened to the merger between NTL and Telewest? Does this mean that
Telewest will be rebranded as Virgin Cable?

No, It's had some electrons passed though it... passing it off as virgin

cable would contravene trade descriptions..

NTL have a press release about all this.
<http://www.ntl.com/mediacentre/press/disclaimer/05-12-2005.asp>

The merger with Telewest is a separate issue which is underway at
present. Once merged, and the Virgin offer accepted, yes, I think it's
likely to be named Virgin Cable as mentioned in the telegraph article.

--
Adrian C

Stone Free wrote:

Jomtien <jomtien@the.beach> wrote in
news:dn3dp15nuomv8v8p4ga0703gfrl8o29i8f@4ax.com:

the dog from that film you saw wrote:

you're kind of suggesting that because nobody else has bothered,
this means sky should have theirs taken off them and have bits
sold/given away to others who are not willing to do what sky did

Perhaps you forget BSB?

I read it on one of the newsgroups, maybe even this one but I don't
know if it was an urban legend, that the reason British Satellite
Broadcasting (BSB) failed was that the government made certain
technical requirements for satellite broadcasters of British companys
that BSB had to finance which made setting up a satellite broadcaster
more expensive to meet but Sky not being a British company (at the
time?) did not bother with.

I have tried before to Google it on Groups but as I saw it at the time
dejanews was running it may not be in the archive (or my search terms
aren't working)


Peter

At the time all european DBS broadcasters were required to use MAC, Britain
adopted D-MAC, the rest of europe adopted D2MAC
--
Adrian A

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4dd5a78f52dave@davenoise.co.uk...
<snip>
[ re British Satellite Broadcasting ]

However, they were also incredibly extravagant with their premises
etc -
mad for an embryo company.

Is that the same building that was later used by OnDigital, now used
by some other broadcaster (who I can't remember...)?
--
Regards, Jerry.
Location - United Kingdom.
In the first instance please reply to group,
Email to the quoted address is deleted unread.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:04:56 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

AFAIR, it was that the satellite had to be purchased from a UK company.

.... and they had to use D-MAC, for which no chip sets were available
initially which substantially pushed up the cost of the receivers and
caused delays... and they had to use the DBS channels of which only 5
were allocated to the UK, giving a maximum number of UK channels of -
5.... and they had to have an in orbit spare satellite (for just these
5 channels) to comply with the terms of their license. They also made
many promises of "squarials" before the technology was apparently
perfected or reduced in price and appeared to be spending money like
there was no tommorrow.

The Amstrad Astra system (Screensport, Eurosport, Lifestyle/TCC, Sky
Channel, Sky News, MTV, Sky Movies plus other foreign channels and the
possibility of more in future) sold for £199 (£250 with remote
control) on which I understand they made a small profit. The BSB
squarial system (5 BSB channels with little chance of expansion -
technically there were 5 channels allocated to Ireland but this would
have required additional satellites and cooperation) sold for around £
400 on which I believe they made a several hundred pound loss.

At the time it was reported the BSB would have better picture quality
and technically this was true with superb RGB pictures and widescreen
capability. In practice, hardly any TVs at the time had RGB SCART so
almost all viewers were watching re modulated UHF with little
difference to the PAL Sky service.

In retrospect I can see why I bought an Astra system at launch...

Rgds
Jonathan

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:08:02 -0000, ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID>
wrote:

Is that the same building that was later used by OnDigital, now used
by some other broadcaster (who I can't remember...)?

Yes, Marcopolo House (sharing its name with the BSB Marcopolo
satellites that AFAIK were renamed Thor and repositioned to cover the
Nordic region on Sky takeover. Later occupied by Ondigitial/ITV
Digital and QVC!

Rgds
Jonathan

JC wrote:

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:08:02 -0000, ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID
wrote:

Is that the same building that was later used by OnDigital, now used
by some other broadcaster (who I can't remember...)?

Yes, Marcopolo House (sharing its name with the BSB Marcopolo
satellites that AFAIK were renamed Thor and repositioned to cover the
Nordic region on Sky takeover. Later occupied by Ondigitial/ITV
Digital and QVC!

Rgds
Jonathan

There was a programme on a while back, called something like "The Curse of
MarcoPolo House".

Bruce S.

--
Replace the by by blueyonder