https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jp5v8tFep16U3@mid.individual.net...
> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html

Will Sky change their name if people are no longer receiving their
broadcasts from a satellite up in the sky>? ;-)

I presume this is a Sky-only thing and will only affect Sky-specific
channels, and the Freesat will continue as a broadcast medium for many years
yet?

On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 18:51:46 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jp5v8t...@mid.individual.net...
> > https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html
>
> Will Sky change their name if people are no longer receiving their
> broadcasts from a satellite up in the sky>? ;-)

Yes, Sky are going to be known as 'Land' from next year.

Bill

On 23/09/2022 19:20, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 18:51:46 UTC+1, NY wrote:
>> "Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:jp5v8t...@mid.individual.net...
>>> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html
>> Will Sky change their name if people are no longer receiving their
>> broadcasts from a satellite up in the sky>? ;-)
> Yes, Sky are going to be known as 'Land' from next year.
>
I learn from other quarters that BT Openreach have now agreed (after
some trials) that Sky installers can install domestic FTTP services
(where Sky are the ISP of course)

It will affect Freesat in the long term, because there will be a point
when the number of 'Sky' users of Astra 28E will make the use of the
transponder uneconomic for the FTA broadcasters. It'll take a while to
reach that point though.

In article <jp5v8tFep16U3@mid.individual.net>,
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html

Internet streaming has the great advantage - from the commercial
providers' point of view - that they can make it very difficult to
record programs and skip over the advertisements.

-- Richard

"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:tgkvr4$11il$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> In article <jp5v8tFep16U3@mid.individual.net>,
> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html
>
> Internet streaming has the great advantage - from the commercial
> providers' point of view - that they can make it very difficult to
> record programs and skip over the advertisements.

For me, those the biggest reasons for keeping terrestrial and satellite
reception: that I can keep recordings, watch them in my own player (eg VLC
on a PC) and edit out the commercials. They definitely wouldn't like people
like me. I have a pathological loathing of being advertised at whether it's
in magazines, people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
talking to you) or on TV, and I try my damndest to avoid adverts. To my
mind, adverts are something that you look at only if you want a product, and
not something you want rammed down your throat when you aren't thinking of
buying. I have a very bad memory for brands: I remember "it was an advert
for frozen chips or a building society or whatever" but if I *was* persuaded
to buy anything, it could easily turn out to be a competitor's brand, which
probably isn't what they want ;-)

On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 22:12:58 UTC+1, NY wrote:

>I have a pathological loathing of being advertised at whether it's
> in magazines, people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
> talking to you) or on TV, and I try my damndest to avoid adverts. To my
> mind, adverts are something that you look at only if you want a product, and
> not something you want rammed down your throat when you aren't thinking of
> buying. I have a very bad memory for brands: I remember "it was an advert
> for frozen chips or a building society or whatever" but if I *was* persuaded
> to buy anything, it could easily turn out to be a competitor's brand, which
> probably isn't what they want ;-)

Some adverts cause me to avoid the product. If an advert appears to be aimed exclusively at black people I assume they don't want my business. If an advert features a mixed race couple I assume that I am being brainwashed into accepting multiculturalism so I don't buy the product. If an advert is in any way woke I don't buy the product.

NY wrote:

>For me, those the biggest reasons for keeping terrestrial and satellite
>reception: that I can keep recordings, watch them in my own player (eg VLC
>on a PC) and edit out the commercials. They definitely wouldn't like people
>like me. I have a pathological loathing of being advertised at whether it's
>in magazines, people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
>talking to you) or on TV, and I try my damndest to avoid adverts.

I don't go as far as editing, but watch practically everything
from my PVR, I hardly watch anything live. I don't want
prefiguring and recaps, trailers or adverts.

I generally FF to the titles and almost automatically hit the
"skip" button when I hear "Coming up...", "Later..." or "Next
we...". (1) The amount of time saved is considerable. Even
Antiques Roadshow and Repair Shop have been tweaked to insert
spoilers at the beginning.

Similarly, I generally manage to ignore adverts in printed
material, or on billboards. So much so that when some comedic
reference is made to an advertising theme, it goes right over my
head.

(1) Channel 5, however, often catches me out as it seem to simply
crash crudely out of the programme, sometimes feeling as if it
was in mid sentence, then try to get me to enter a competition.
:-(

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 24/09/2022 01:59, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
> Some adverts cause me to avoid the product. If an advert appears to be aimed exclusively at black people I assume they don't want my business. If an advert features a mixed race couple I assume that I am being brainwashed into accepting multiculturalism so I don't buy the product. If an advert is in any way woke I don't buy the product.

It is not that long ago that it was claimed that black children had no
role models in the media but fast becoming white children who see no
role models in the media.

It is crazy now, a silly Radio 4 presenter criticised the England
Women's football team for 'lack of diversity' when the proportion was
was close to the overall proportion in the UK. But praised the
'diversity' of the England Men's football team which I read was 44% black.

Then there was the complete lack of any diversity in 400m Relay teams at
about the same time but they were 100% black so that appears to be
acceptable.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 22:12:39 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:tgkvr4$11il$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...
>> In article <jp5v8tFep16U3@mid.individual.net>,
>> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html
>>
>> Internet streaming has the great advantage - from the commercial
>> providers' point of view - that they can make it very difficult to
>> record programs and skip over the advertisements.
>
>For me, those the biggest reasons for keeping terrestrial and satellite
>reception: that I can keep recordings, watch them in my own player (eg VLC
>on a PC) and edit out the commercials. They definitely wouldn't like people
>like me. I have a pathological loathing of being advertised at whether it's
>in magazines, people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
>talking to you) or on TV, and I try my damndest to avoid adverts. To my
>mind, adverts are something that you look at only if you want a product, and
>not something you want rammed down your throat when you aren't thinking of
>buying. I have a very bad memory for brands: I remember "it was an advert
>for frozen chips or a building society or whatever" but if I *was* persuaded
>to buy anything, it could easily turn out to be a competitor's brand, which
>probably isn't what they want ;-)

On the other hand, it's usually possible to pay to see things without
adverts. Although it would be nice to watch everything for free, it
can't be argued that it's unreasonable to pay forthings that you want,
and all the paid subscription services I'm aware of so far are
significantly cheaper than the BBC licence, the days of which, as far
as I'm concerned, are numbered.

Rod.

On 24/09/2022 09:10, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> I generally FF to the titles and almost automatically hit the
> "skip" button when I hear "Coming up...", "Later..." or "Next
> we...". (1) The amount of time saved is considerable. Even
> Antiques Roadshow and Repair Shop have been tweaked to insert
> spoilers at the beginning.

But how many times do you hear "I did not know it was on, why didn't the
BBC inform me"

On 24/09/2022 09:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On the other hand, it's usually possible to pay to see things without
> adverts. Although it would be nice to watch everything for free, it
> can't be argued that it's unreasonable to pay forthings that you want,
> and all the paid subscription services I'm aware of so far are
> significantly cheaper than the BBC licence, the days of which, as far
> as I'm concerned, are numbered.

Perhaps if you compare on a programme by programme basis but I doubt
they are cheaper if you allow for the range supplied by the BBC
(including radio etc).

In article <832ec949-aadc-4eee-9008-1cfcfe6bb621n@googlegroups.com>,
wrightsaerials@aol.com <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

> Some adverts cause me to avoid the product. If an advert appears to
> be aimed exclusively at black people I assume they don't want my
> business. If an advert features a mixed race couple I assume that I
> am being brainwashed into accepting multiculturalism so I don't buy
> the product. If an advert is in any way woke I don't buy the
> product.

I think that's the effect that type of advert has on most people.

For me, no surprise, products virtue signalling about how they are
tackling <you know what> get treated the same but with an added note
of contempt for the company.

Bob.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 19:52:15 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 23/09/2022 19:20, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 18:51:46 UTC+1, NY wrote:
>>> "Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:jp5v8t...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html
>>> Will Sky change their name if people are no longer receiving their
>>> broadcasts from a satellite up in the sky>? ;-)
>> Yes, Sky are going to be known as 'Land' from next year.
>>
>I learn from other quarters that BT Openreach have now agreed (after
>some trials) that Sky installers can install domestic FTTP services
>(where Sky are the ISP of course)
>
>It will affect Freesat in the long term, because there will be a point
>when the number of 'Sky' users of Astra 28E will make the use of the
>transponder uneconomic for the FTA broadcasters. It'll take a while to
>reach that point though.

Perhaps why Humax no longer makes Freesat PVRs and receivers?
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 09:16:22 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 22:12:39 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>news:tgkvr4$11il$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...
>>> In article <jp5v8tFep16U3@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html
>>>
>>> Internet streaming has the great advantage - from the commercial
>>> providers' point of view - that they can make it very difficult to
>>> record programs and skip over the advertisements.
>>
>>For me, those the biggest reasons for keeping terrestrial and satellite
>>reception: that I can keep recordings, watch them in my own player (eg VLC
>>on a PC) and edit out the commercials. They definitely wouldn't like people
>>like me. I have a pathological loathing of being advertised at whether it's
>>in magazines, people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
>>talking to you) or on TV, and I try my damndest to avoid adverts. To my
>>mind, adverts are something that you look at only if you want a product, and
>>not something you want rammed down your throat when you aren't thinking of
>>buying. I have a very bad memory for brands: I remember "it was an advert
>>for frozen chips or a building society or whatever" but if I *was* persuaded
>>to buy anything, it could easily turn out to be a competitor's brand, which
>>probably isn't what they want ;-)
>
>On the other hand, it's usually possible to pay to see things without
>adverts. Although it would be nice to watch everything for free, it
>can't be argued that it's unreasonable to pay forthings that you want,
>and all the paid subscription services I'm aware of so far are
>significantly cheaper than the BBC licence, the days of which, as far
>as I'm concerned, are numbered.

None of them offer as big a spectrum of programme subjects/contents as the BBC
does or used to offers. The nearest is SKY but that isn't free either.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 09:22:28 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 24/09/2022 09:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On the other hand, it's usually possible to pay to see things without
>> adverts. Although it would be nice to watch everything for free, it
>> can't be argued that it's unreasonable to pay forthings that you want,
>> and all the paid subscription services I'm aware of so far are
>> significantly cheaper than the BBC licence, the days of which, as far
>> as I'm concerned, are numbered.
>
>
>Perhaps if you compare on a programme by programme basis but I doubt
>they are cheaper if you allow for the range supplied by the BBC
>(including radio etc).

+1

--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 09:10:03 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:

>NY wrote:
>
>>For me, those the biggest reasons for keeping terrestrial and satellite
>>reception: that I can keep recordings, watch them in my own player (eg VLC
>>on a PC) and edit out the commercials. They definitely wouldn't like people
>>like me. I have a pathological loathing of being advertised at whether it's
>>in magazines, people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
>>talking to you) or on TV, and I try my damndest to avoid adverts.
>
>I don't go as far as editing, but watch practically everything
>from my PVR, I hardly watch anything live. I don't want
>prefiguring and recaps, trailers or adverts.
>
>I generally FF to the titles and almost automatically hit the
>"skip" button when I hear "Coming up...", "Later..." or "Next
>we...". (1) The amount of time saved is considerable. Even
>Antiques Roadshow and Repair Shop have been tweaked to insert
>spoilers at the beginning.
>
>Similarly, I generally manage to ignore adverts in printed
>material, or on billboards. So much so that when some comedic
>reference is made to an advertising theme, it goes right over my
>head.
>
>(1) Channel 5, however, often catches me out as it seem to simply
>crash crudely out of the programme, sometimes feeling as if it
>was in mid sentence, then try to get me to enter a competition.
>:-(

We do the same.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

In article <tgl7go$2m3r8$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
>talking to you)

Telling them "I'm with Chemosh" usually works.

-- Richard

"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:tgmkt4$1uf3$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> In article <tgl7go$2m3r8$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
>>talking to you)
>
> Telling them "I'm with Chemosh" usually works.

I don't let them get into their religious spiel. If I detect waffle and
failure to come to the point (eg leading with a bizarre irrelevant
question), I interrupt and ask directly "Are you representing a religious
organisation?". If they say yes I say something like "In that case, keep
quiet about it and don't bother people who aren't". I am very tolerant of
people who have different views to me - eg who are religious of any type -
as long as they don't try to foist those beliefs on me and make me feel that
they are in some way "better" than me. They are *different*, not better or
worse.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 09:22:28 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 24/09/2022 09:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On the other hand, it's usually possible to pay to see things without
>> adverts. Although it would be nice to watch everything for free, it
>> can't be argued that it's unreasonable to pay forthings that you want,
>> and all the paid subscription services I'm aware of so far are
>> significantly cheaper than the BBC licence, the days of which, as far
>> as I'm concerned, are numbered.
>
>
>Perhaps if you compare on a programme by programme basis but I doubt
>they are cheaper if you allow for the range supplied by the BBC
>(including radio etc).
>

"Range" is meaningless if most of it's of no interest to me because
it's chosen by other people.

I'd rather pay a sensible amount to choose for myself what I actually
want, just as I always have done with books and records. I can't see
any reason why television programmes should be different, now that we
have the technology to provide them on the same basis.

Rod.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 10:07:32 +0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <tgl7go$2m3r8$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
>>talking to you)
>
>Telling them "I'm with Chemosh" usually works.
>
>-- Richard

Somebody on one of my BBC Wood Norton courses said he claimed to be a
cathode follower.

Rod.

On Saturday, 24 September 2022 at 12:24:57 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> "Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:tgmkt4$1uf3$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> > In article <tgl7go$2m3r8$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>people knocking on the door (yes, Jehova's Witnesses, I'm
> >>talking to you)
> >
> > Telling them "I'm with Chemosh" usually works.
> I don't let them get into their religious spiel. If I detect waffle and
> failure to come to the point (eg leading with a bizarre irrelevant
> question), I interrupt and ask directly "Are you representing a religious
> organisation?". If they say yes I say something like "In that case, keep
> quiet about it and don't bother people who aren't". I am very tolerant of
> people who have different views to me - eg who are religious of any type -
> as long as they don't try to foist those beliefs on me and make me feel that
> they are in some way "better" than me. They are *different*, not better or
> worse.
Here in Yorkshire we have a simple way of getting rid of them. We say "Bugger off!" and slam the door in their faces. Rational discussion and social subtlety have no place here.
Bill

On 23/09/2022 18:51, NY wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jp5v8tFep16U3@mid.individual.net...
>> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html
>>
>
> Will Sky change their name if people are no longer receiving their
> broadcasts from a satellite up in the sky>? ;-)
>
> I presume this is a Sky-only thing and will only affect Sky-specific
> channels, and the Freesat will continue as a broadcast medium for many
> years yet?

it would be very convenient if for terrestrial channels you could avoid
connecting your tv to the aerial socket and instead receive them via
broadband - as simple as 1 gets you bbc 1, 2 bbc 2 etc etc.

So is this not really putting all your eggs in one basket?
I'd have thought, unless they have a plan to use the capacity for
commercial uses, that in many areas, a dish is the only way to go. Does it
really cost them moor than making everyone have the internet and suffer all
the problems outside of their control as far as the cables are concerned.
Only today a load of but powered internet subscribers have either slow or no
connections for no reason they have been given.
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:jp5v8tFep16U3@mid.individual.net...
> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html

I did also wonder if Freesat and indeed Freeview might go completely online,
which as I and others have said is a huge mistake as it gives a single point
of failure for all communications.
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.!
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:tgkrng$2jm24$1@dont-email.me...
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jp5v8tFep16U3@mid.individual.net...
>> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/09/sky-uk-reportedly-plan-to-end-satellite-tv-dish-installs-in-2023.html
>
> Will Sky change their name if people are no longer receiving their
> broadcasts from a satellite up in the sky>? ;-)
>
> I presume this is a Sky-only thing and will only affect Sky-specific
> channels, and the Freesat will continue as a broadcast medium for many
> years yet?