[mythtvnz] Optus D1 HPol - TV3/C4
Steve Hodge
mythtvnz@lists.linuxnut.co.nz
Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:01:04 +1300
------=_Part_15110_13908588.1170388864477
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 2/2/07, Steven Ellis <steven@openmedia.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, February 2, 2007 4:31 pm, Steve Hodge wrote:
> > On 2/2/07, Steven Ellis <steven@openmedia.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> Prime is a commercial decision. Keeps a lot of people paying Sky
> because
> >> they want Prime. I know a lot of people who will happily pay just to
> get
> >> Top Gear etc.
> >>
> >
> > You know a lot of people who have non-Sky satelite equipment, don't use
> > UHF,
> > and pay for Sky Digital purely for Prime? I find that hard to believe.
> > Most
> > (95%+?) of the people who watch Prime have access to the free,
> > unencrypted,
> > UHF transmission. So for Sky to claim that encrypting the sat
> transmission
> > is a significant commercial gain seems a bit ridiculous to me.
>
> I know people who currently pay Sky for 1-4 because they have no
> reception, but now that they have Prime via Sky they won't give it up.
>
> I also know people who can get 1-4 on VHF but pay for Sky because their
> Prime on UHF is so bad.
>
Sure, but unless those people are also able to view unencrypted DVB-S
signals (via computer or a settop box) the encryption status of Prime has
absolutely no bearing on them at this time. I guess when FreeView is up and
running it'll be a different story though.
Cheers,
Steve
------=_Part_15110_13908588.1170388864477
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 2/2/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Steven Ellis</b> <<a href="mailto:steven@openmedia.co.nz">steven@openmedia.co.nz</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>On Fri, February 2, 2007 4:31 pm, Steve Hodge wrote:<br>> On 2/2/07, Steven Ellis <<a href="mailto:steven@openmedia.co.nz">steven@openmedia.co.nz</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Prime is a commercial decision. Keeps a lot of people paying Sky because
<br>>> they want Prime. I know a lot of people who will happily pay just to get<br>>> Top Gear etc.<br>>><br>><br>> You know a lot of people who have non-Sky satelite equipment, don't use<br>> UHF,
<br>> and pay for Sky Digital purely for Prime? I find that hard to believe.<br>> Most<br>> (95%+?) of the people who watch Prime have access to the free,<br>> unencrypted,<br>> UHF transmission. So for Sky to claim that encrypting the sat transmission
<br>> is a significant commercial gain seems a bit ridiculous to me.<br><br>I know people who currently pay Sky for 1-4 because they have no<br>reception, but now that they have Prime via Sky they won't give it up.
<br><br>I also know people who can get 1-4 on VHF but pay for Sky because their<br>Prime on UHF is so bad.<br></blockquote></div><br>Sure, but unless those people are also able to view unencrypted DVB-S signals (via computer or a settop box) the encryption status of Prime has absolutely no bearing on them at this time. I guess when FreeView is up and running it'll be a different story though.
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Steve<br>
------=_Part_15110_13908588.1170388864477--