TV via the Internet as an alternative to satellite

2,837 posts in this topic

I would have thought a VPN would have been secure enough, unless it failed and defaulted to "native" mode without the users being aware.

 

RT

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Periodically, many services flip the switch on VPNs and they do so to ensure they are "making a reasonable effort" to georestrict.

 

Both Netflix and Hulu have actively blocked all major VPNs and Smart DNS users on one occasion over the last 12 months. Demand 5 has a habit of blocking things every time they update their iOS app. Same for some of the US OTA networks.

 

Zattoo have also done this on occasions.

 

Sometimes though it is just them making changes to their servers, but don't tell the Smart DNS companies. (Naturally).

 

In all this time that I have been actively dealing with Smart DNS I have only ever seen one service declare war on Smart DNS, and that was Al Jazeera Sport who were under pressure from the English Premier League over football rights (and even then it was mainly targeting commercial use, i.e. pubs using Smart DNS and VPN to stream from AJS (now BeIN) and who were paying far less money for the public rights).

 

But the odd hiccup should be expected on occasions. When they do go down, contact your VPN or DNS provider whoever they are, and let them know. The sooner that happens, the sooner they can switch servers and get back to normal again.

 

As for the Netflix thing, I have a good idea what all this is about, but I can't publicly say anything here. In fact, don't ask privately either as the latest info I have is locked well up behind an NDA. That said, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When they do go down, contact your VPN or DNS provider whoever they are, and let them know.

The issue in this case is not getting the service running again....it is the worry that SKY will cancel your contract if they think you are a wicked evil person that lives the wrong side of the channel.

 

But if they do that I will be first in the queue for a pirated service - the whole system is bonkers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just do not believe that SKY will cut large numbers of people off, as SKY would loose money if they did this, it just does not make any sense.

 

SKY may cut one or two off just to show they "are makes reasonable efforts to restrict reception to the UK."

 

But they will loose two much money , if they cut every body out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is they may take steps against those with INTERNET connections to their boxes...which would appease the content providers, but actually only accounts for maybe 1% of their overseas income. That is the warning we are discussing....if your box (like most people) is not connected to the internet then they simply have no way of tracking or taking action.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make this clear.. They have lost the internet conectivity of their box.. ie.. no iPlayer etc..

 

The Sky subscription channels remain in tact...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. That is more interesting.....just implies they may be blocking the more obvious VPN or DNS choices and that a simple change will get them running again. It sounded like SKY were being more arsey than that. I shall sleep soundly again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that once the IP adress is blocked... it will remain blocked.. Hidemyass or disguisemytits... whatever is used.. it will remain blocked...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SP - can you give me the full URL of the second VPN provider? I like the sound of it. :)

 

RT

 

(sorry, I know that is not PC)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The issue in this case is not getting the service running again....it is the worry that SKY will cancel your contract if they think you are a wicked evil person that lives the wrong side of the channel.

 

But if they do that I will be first in the queue for a pirated service - the whole system is bonkers.

 

Sky cut me off a long time ago, back before IP address issues when I was subscribing to their normal satellite feed. They decided because I had a German credit card, and didn't have a subsidized box which didn't connect to a telephone line (as it didn't need to being bought), that I must be watching outside of the UK.

 

I had to create a new account.

 

I agree with you that it is all bonkers. All of that money I paid to Sky, filtered down through the system so everyone was paid, who should have been paid, from the broadcaster to the content provider, the actors, directors, cameramen and grips. No one lost out... well, except of course for Sky Deutschland (which was Premiere I think back then??). Sky UK got my money instead of Premiere - which of course I didn't use because I didn't want their product.

 

So, effectively, it was no different to me choosing say Kaufhof instead of Karstadt, and Karstadt getting the hump.

 

It is really exactly the same via the Internet.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just playing The Devil's Advocate - the problem is that content is sold by the Hollywood studios, Football League etc by region. They can demand and expect more money when selling to SKY UK than selling a film to SKY BARBADOS (doesn't actually exist) due to different populations. Likewise Spanish football is of limited interest to UK viewers.

 

If a film is sold by Hollywood for viewing in the UK, but watched by someone via the UK SKY system in Germany - it is 1 less customer for a German terrestial TV channel and their crappy advertisers of hair products.

 

However it is still a crap system. At the very least I think anyone transmitting in Europe should be free to sell to any customer in Europe. Then the deals are just done based on the number of subscribers etc. The current system is clearly very "anti-Europe" because it means that someone living in Germany cannot officially buy something that somebody in UK can get every day.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-Europe indeed. I would expect the EU to wade in on this at some point. If they can force mobile phone operators to eliminate all roaming charges (including data), which is planned for the end of the year, then they can force this issue as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I do not think the problem is the law. Everybody has the right to not do business in/with a certain region.

 

 

At the very least I think anyone transmitting in Europe should be free to sell to any customer in Europe.

Well, take the BBC as an example. They sure have the right to broadcast their programs in an open way, so that anybody in europe can watch it online. However, the certainly have the right to refrain from doing so. And that is their decision, isn't it?

 

Some TV broadcasters in the Netherlands and in Ireland made the same decision.

 

 

The current system is clearly very "anti-Europe" because it means that someone living in Germany cannot

officially buy something that somebody in UK can get every day.

Hmmm, for example, Tesco has the right to open supermarkets in Germany, don't they? However, they apparently aren't interested in selling their products to customers in Germany. Bummer. But - and that's a fact - it is their right to refrain from doing business in Germany.

 

 

Anti-Europe indeed. I would expect the EU to wade in on this at some point.

How? When somebody doesn't want to do business in Germany, nobody can force him/her to do that! In the very same way as nobody can enforce that products sold in Germany must come with an English manual. Or that companies operating in France must have an English speaking hotline. Or that DVDs sold in the UK must contain French and German and Polish audio tracks...

 

I mean, every stupid pizza delivery service has a limit in operation, if you do not live in their "core district" you won't get service from them... And there is no EU law that can be applied to @rse kick them into taking your money.

 

 

If they can force mobile phone operators to eliminate all roaming charges (including data), which is planned for the end of the year, then they can force this issue as well.

Very different story. That's "if you decide to do business with murphaph, you may not charge him more than X for <whatever service>" vs. "You must do business with murphaph, you cannot refrain from taking him as customer".

 

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

 

Cheers

Franklan

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU also brought in SEPA to force banks to use a common payment system. SEPA is a pre-requisite for the next step (there is a draft already in place and it will become law soon enough) which will be to force banks in one EU state to sell their financial products to citizens in another.

 

Perhaps that's closer to this, in fact that's almost the same, and the EU fully intends on doing it.

 

The banks all dragged their heels on a common payment system until the EU had had enough and forced them. Preventing access to media in your own language will soon be seen as a barrier to the free movement of people IMO and will be addressed at EU level. The big Hollywood content providers won't stop selling into the EU as the market is just to lucrative and anyway...using internet access or sky cards etc. it's perfectly possible to know how many customers a broadcaster has, even if they are outside some arbitrary geographic area.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hmmm, for example, Tesco has the right to open supermarkets in Germany, don't they? However, they apparently aren't interested in selling their products to customers in Germany. Bummer. But - and that's a fact - it is their right to refrain from doing business in Germany.

I don't agree with your examples. As a German citizen I am allowed to walk into any branch of Tescos in Europe and purchase their products....be that in Poland or Bristol. Regretfully as these are physical goods they may not have a branch near me for whatever economic reasons, but I will certainly NOT be turned away at the door for "being German" if I choose to make the trip/effort.

 

In the case of SKY they are telling me to fuck off just for "being a German". I resent that.

 

The irony is that it's kinda not really SKY as such...they are happy to take any European money. It's the guys selling them content.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do not think the problem is the law. Everybody has the right to not do business in/with a certain region.

 

I think you are quite right, of course the broadcasters have a right not to do business with anyone, the issue is that the content providers often require the broadcasters not to do business with other regions and go after end users of the services if local law prevents them going after the broadcaster.

This is the bit that's "anti-EU".

 

The example I'm thinking of was the recent FA case against Karen Murphy(A pub owner from Portsmouth) and a Greek broadcaster who she bought a service from..

 

Good write-up on the current situation here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

the issue is that the content providers often require the broadcasters not to do business with other regions

If you've bought the right to show something to an audience of 63 Million people, but then broadcast it in a way that it can be seen by 740 Million people, you're committing fraud. The requirement "to not show to all of Europe" comes because (in this example) only the right for UK-distribution was bought. Again, that's fraud if you do not obey. In the very same way as buying 63 licenses of Windows but then installing it on 740 PCs.

 

Really, I don't like the situation either. It is laughable for services like Netflix (who get paid on a per view basis, which I do not consider as "broadcasting"), but for broadcasters like BBC and IRÉ, I do not see the georestriction vanish in the near future. At the end of the day, British and Irish taxpayers expect their broadcasters to buy the least expensive license for the content, and not to splurge obscene fees to be able to legally provide content to non tax paying expats living abroad. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

 

Cheers

Franklan

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be an intelligent workable way to fix this. I am happy to pay for content - simple as that, but these crazy restrictions potentially force us to pay nothing and stream illegally.

 

We all live on the same spinning rock.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It cannot be beyond the capabilities of the BBC, ITV etc. to make their catch up services available for a fee to anybody who wants to buy it. I pay for the rights to watch the MotoGP races over the internet perfectly legally. At the moment I also pay a company to provide me with one of these DNS thingies, which enables me to effectively steal the BBC etcs. catch up content. If I stopped paying these people I would lose the access. I'd much rather the money went to the people providing the content, but it's not possible. Which makes no sense to me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now