On 10/04/2022 09:44 am, alan_m wrote:
> On 10/04/2022 09:08, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> Reading the web site I got the impression that the latest Sky Q could
>> also
>> just use the internet as well, but like many marketing sites, its a
>> little
>> bamboozling.
>>   Brian
>>
>
> Any box that allows catch up TV must operate over the Interweb as does
> any box that supports random pay for view films etc. Sky Q boxes support
> both these modes of operation.

Correct. And so does the predecessor Sky+HD box.

On 10/04/2022 11:28 am, Andy Burns wrote:

> Bob Latham wrote:
>
>> Sky Glass, the TV doesn't use a dish, it operates entirely from the
>> Internet unless there's a tv aerial socket, I've not checked that out.
>
> Surprisingly, there is an aerial input.

You'd need that for moments when the internet is down.

Is there an input for recorders, cameras, etc?

On 10/04/2022 10:29, alan_m wrote:
> On 10/04/2022 09:41, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> However its done, does the system talk to Sky and let them know ho
>> watches
>> what, or something?
>
> The sky Q box interfaces to the inbuilt camera in your TV and
> transmits the picture back to sky. From this information Sky knows how
> many people are watching.
>
And automatically adds a box of tissues to your weekly on-line
supermarket shop if it detects that 's necessary

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> essentially it is a lock in

I agree that was probably their motivation

> does anyone non $ky supply receivers that use this method?

Yes, freesat.

On 10/04/2022 10:29, alan_m wrote:
> The sky Q box interfaces to the inbuilt camera in your TV and transmits
> the picture back to sky. From this information Sky knows how many people
> are watching.

So some truth in those Ransomware EMails about them having video of you
doing naughty things whilst watching TV / browsing?

On 10/04/2022 10:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> What's the point of a machine that collects
> more material than you can watch?

So they can brag to their friends in the pub!

The only possible use I can think of is a crazy football supporter
recording ALL games.

> Do you have a sky Q LNB with extra legacy universal LNB outputs
> or is it just a sky Q LNB with the two wideband outputs? I
> suspect the former as the designer of a 15 year old box would
> have required a crystal ball to support Sky Q wideband.

Sky installed it several years ago to replace an older non-Sky quad LNB, don't
recall ever being told the outputs were different capability, did not have to
mess around the find cables that worked with each receiver, but never tried
swapping them around.

Assumed the Sky LNBs were auto selecting narrow/wide band, in the same way as
horiz/vert, low/high band. But I recall he had different LNBs in the van and
not all might do that.

Angus

On 10/04/2022 10:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 23:22:55 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My current PVR can record more than 8 simultaneous programs with 2
>> tuners fed from two outputs from a quad universal LNB. The limitation
>> with two tuners is that all the channels/programs must be on the same
>> two transponders. At the same time I can watch live TV from those
>> transponders or watch anything recorded
>

The main point I was making that the latest Sky offerings are not at the
cutting edge of technology or unique to them. My PVR is 7 years old.

I often will record things for later, watch 10 minutes and decide that
it crap and delete immediately.

I will also record programs I like and use the PVR to quickly skip
through adverts. With one of my regular viewings I can press one of my
skip forward buttons to miss the opening 45 seconds of the title
sequence and with another skip 3 lots of 3 minute advertising slots

> My Freeview machine can only record two things at once, but even with
> that limitation the recordings were piling up faster than I could find
> the time to watch them, which is why on December 31st I decided to
> wipe the disk and not record any more, and literally haven't switched
> it on this year. I haven't missed it at all. I have thousands of hours
> of material available via the internet, but it's all handled by
> somebody else's machinery so I don't have to worry about it, and
> anything I don't want is much easier to igno>

I don't spend too much time managing recordings and with 1 Tbyte hard
disk I don't worry too much about it filling up.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 10/04/2022 09:24, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> The only thing that attracts me about Sky is the voice I/O system it has.
> Surely if your box does not have an analogue output, you can use the optical
> output and one of those el cheapo little interfaces to make the Analogue
> video and audio.
Optical out is SPDIF, so audio only. I've never seen any domestic kit
with optical video out ?

On 10/04/2022 09:08, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Reading the web site I got the impression that the latest Sky Q could also
> just use the internet as well, but like many marketing sites, its a little
> bamboozling.
Most of what we watch on Sky Q actually comes via the internet and not
the dish.

Browsers on TVs and set top boxes are really clunky. Best solution is to
have an Android phone, and 'cast' whatever you browse to on the phone,
onto your telly direct.

On 10/04/2022 18:06, MB wrote:
> On 10/04/2022 10:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> What's the point of a machine that collects
>> more material than you can watch?
>
> So they can brag to their friends in the pub!
>
> The only possible use I can think of is a crazy football supporter
> recording ALL games.

Just because a box can doesn't mean that you do. My box has 4 tuners,
two satellite and two terrestrial, and it can record from them all
simultaneously and more than 8 programs at once if on the same two
transponders or same two MUXs. The number of times I have recorded 4
programs at the same time is possibly only once or twice in a year.

What it also allows me to do when recording 2 programs on two different
transponders/MUXs is to flick through all possible alternative programs
to watch live. With two tuners dedicated to two recordings I would be
limited to only being able to access programs on the same transponders/MUxs.

Having free turners allows my 7 year old box to support a second box in
another room. The second box can use any of the free tuners via the home
network or direct wi-fi. The second box can also instigate and access
the recordings on the hard disk. Although I have a quad universal LNB my
box will support a unicable LNB but I could get the equivalent of two
outputs from the universal LNB but via one down-lead cable (then using
a £3 spitter just before the box to connect to its two inputs).

The distribution of aerial and satellite around my house is a dozen
years old and is via multiple leads. If I wanted the equivalent from
scratch today I could have one lead from my satellite dish and one lead
from my aerial. I would buy a mid-range box with multiple tuners and a
large hard drive for recording. For another other room I could buy a box
for around £80 with no hard drive and connect it via wi-fi to my main
box and it would have the same functionality because it was sharing the
facilities in the main box (tuners and hard drive). Now having more than
two tuners and the ability to record more simultaneously makes more sense.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 10/04/2022 13:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>
> Perhaps, but the fibre type is a better solution (one fibre, one power cable), albeit expensive (or I would have upgraded to it).
>
> Fibre probably too 'difficult' for $ky engineers to install.

But unicable (unicable II) is just as easy to install and just one lead
from the dish, and much easier to distribute around the house. You need
a receiver that can support a unicable LNB and possibly one with FCB
tuners to take full advantage but the latter is not essential.

<https://www.world-of-satellite.com/showthread.php?59981-Guide-to-using-Unicable>

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 10/04/2022 11:28, Andy Burns wrote:
> Bob Latham wrote:
>
>> Sky Glass, the TV doesn't use a dish, it operates entirely from the
>> Internet unless there's a tv aerial socket, I've not checked that out.
>
> Surprisingly, there is an aerial input.

And it only cost £60 per annum to enable the facility to skip the
adverts :)

It's in the small print, free for the first year but then £5 extra a month.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 10/04/2022 19:18, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:

>
> Assumed the Sky LNBs were auto selecting narrow/wide band, in the same way as
> horiz/vert, low/high band. But I recall he had different LNBs in the van and
> not all might do that.

Sky q widebands works in a different way
One cable carries all horizontal transponders and the other carries all
vertical transponders. You need both cables connected for a full
service. They have also nicked the terrestrial TV frequencies for
satellite so you cannot now combine terrestrial TV and Sat in one down
lead and split them at a faceplate.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

I don't believe that for a second! That would be commercial suicide.
My tv has no camera.
You can connect one if you want to of course but really why would you want
to be bothered?

If you want a good laugh, if you go on the web into your Alexa account you
can see how unsmart their system really is.
You said (plays recording)
Alexa herd (puts text)

Can be very funny.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"alan_m" <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jbfmblFic1hU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/04/2022 09:41, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> However its done, does the system talk to Sky and let them know ho
>> watches
>> what, or something?
>
> The sky Q box interfaces to the inbuilt camera in your TV and transmits
> the picture back to sky. From this information Sky knows how many people
> are watching.
>
>
>
> --
> mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Yes well I was thinking of something more naughty myself.
I have to say that the new Amazon Echo View device which can follow you by
rotating its screen as you walk around is creepy.
Its another one of those products that falls into the category, why did you
do it, because we can. I wonder that it would do if there were two people
probably have the Alexa equivalent of a nervous breakdown.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jbgejkFmrfcU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/04/2022 10:29, alan_m wrote:
>> On 10/04/2022 09:41, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>> However its done, does the system talk to Sky and let them know ho
>>> watches
>>> what, or something?
>>
>> The sky Q box interfaces to the inbuilt camera in your TV and transmits
>> the picture back to sky. From this information Sky knows how many people
>> are watching.
>>
> And automatically adds a box of tissues to your weekly on-line supermarket
> shop if it detects that 's necessary
>
>

Oh those are really hilarious , not seen one for a while now. In today's
world I doubt if anyone would really care what you were doing in front of
your computer or tv.
What I could never understand was why they wanted to be played in bitcoins.
Most people would not know how to do that in any case.
I used to deliberately do searches for stupid things some a bit naughty
others just downright silly. It is often interesting to see if it affects
the adverts you get sent. I don't really think I detected any difference
except it used to find me adverts for Venetian blinds a lot.

So much for AI.

Talking of on line scams though, these fake Eastern European girlfrieind
emails and the ones about helping some bent African to get his illegal dosh
out of the country are still coming in. Surely people do not fall for this
crap, still.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:t2v2mp$ee5$1@dont-email.me...
> On 10/04/2022 10:29, alan_m wrote:
>> The sky Q box interfaces to the inbuilt camera in your TV and transmits
>> the picture back to sky. From this information Sky knows how many people
>> are watching.
>
> So some truth in those Ransomware EMails about them having video of you
> doing naughty things whilst watching TV / browsing?

On 10/04/2022 14:43, alan_m wrote:
> On 10/04/2022 12:05, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
>>> At one time you could replace a sky box with any other box to
>>> receive non-subcription services ... until the sky Q LNB.
>>
>> The wideband Sky Q LNB works with all satellite receivers, at least
>> mine does
>> since it feeds my 15 years old Humax Foxsat and the Sky Q box.
>
> Do you have a sky Q LNB with extra legacy universal LNB outputs or is
> it just a sky Q LNB with the two wideband outputs? I suspect the
> former as the designer of a 15 year old box would have required a
> crystal ball to support Sky Q wideband.

Yes. I tried my 12 year old Humax Freesat box on the two Wideband LNB
ports of a 6 port hybrid LNB, and it didn't work properly. A couple
channels randomly appeared, but they had been heterodyned onto the wrong
frequencies, and therefore not the PIDs etc the box was expecting, so it
got very confused. I replugged it to the two 'Universal' ports, and all
good

On 11/04/2022 08:02, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> I don't believe that for a second! That would be commercial suicide.

It is a scam that like other scams that is sent out to millions of
people irrespective of whether they have a camera or have viewed dodgy
channels.

But it scares people into paying the ransom, if only a tiny percentage
pay up then they can make a lot of money.

But they seemed to have quietened down, must have found a different,
more profitable, scam.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:42:54 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

>I don't spend too much time managing recordings and with 1 Tbyte hard
>disk I don't worry too much about it filling up.

Neither did I, but with 500Gbyte about threequarters full, some of it
more than a year old, and about 90 percent of it unwatched, on the
31st of December last year I asked myself what was the point of
keeping it, and had no answer.

Rod.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2022 10:29:25 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

>The sky Q box interfaces to the inbuilt camera in your TV and transmits
>the picture back to sky. From this information Sky knows how many people
>are watching.

I read a story once about a dystopian future world with telescreens
that would watch the viewers and couldn't be switched off. It was
written on a Scottish island a long time ago - published the year I
was born in fact - but it was just a story, and I never thought
anything like it would ever come true...

Rod.

On 11/04/2022 10:55 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The sky Q box interfaces to the inbuilt camera in your TV and transmits
>> the picture back to sky. From this information Sky knows how many people
>> are watching.
>
> I read a story once about a dystopian future world with telescreens
> that would watch the viewers and couldn't be switched off.

"1984"?

> It was
> written on a Scottish island a long time ago - published the year I
> was born in fact - but it was just a story, and I never thought
> anything like it would ever come true...

On 11/04/2022 10:55, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> I read a story once about a dystopian future world with telescreens
> that would watch the viewers and couldn't be switched off. It was
> written on a Scottish island a long time ago - published the year I
> was born in fact - but it was just a story, and I never thought
> anything like it would ever come true...

And when the videophone became possible, there were reservations because
of similar implications. The usual worry was young women receiving calls
from strangers when in a state of undress.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:11:17 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 10:55, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> I read a story once about a dystopian future world with telescreens
>> that would watch the viewers and couldn't be switched off. It was
>> written on a Scottish island a long time ago - published the year I
>> was born in fact - but it was just a story, and I never thought
>> anything like it would ever come true...
>
>And when the videophone became possible, there were reservations because
>of similar implications. The usual worry was young women receiving calls
>from strangers when in a state of undress.

Then came the internet, and a situation where lots of young women
willingly post pictures of themselves in a state of undress. Those
pictures on the Daily Mail website are not all taken by reporters.

Rod.

People have something called vanity, and I suspect that drives a lot of
these. You would not expect a load of ugly people to post images of
themselves in a state of undress. Of course those who are considered ugly
can suffer loss of self esteem when people do this. What people need to
realise is just as the old proverb says, beauty can be only skin deep. Its
the person which matters. There is also a tendency for certain personality
types to want they few minutes of fame. Just look at the reality TV shows.
Not for me, but they obviously know there is a possibility of being
humiliated, but they just do not care.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:th585h1khdica00pc5u8t5rf2as4aih3dt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:11:17 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 11/04/2022 10:55, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> I read a story once about a dystopian future world with telescreens
>>> that would watch the viewers and couldn't be switched off. It was
>>> written on a Scottish island a long time ago - published the year I
>>> was born in fact - but it was just a story, and I never thought
>>> anything like it would ever come true...
>>
>>And when the videophone became possible, there were reservations because
>>of similar implications. The usual worry was young women receiving calls
>>from strangers when in a state of undress.
>
> Then came the internet, and a situation where lots of young women
> willingly post pictures of themselves in a state of undress. Those
> pictures on the Daily Mail website are not all taken by reporters.
>
> Rod.