Well, no. You might lose it because you aren't inclined to invest in the bigger dish required to receive it, but that doesn't mean it's somehow "less legal" to receive it after they switch satellites.

Provided you have a big enough dish, you can receive almost every UK "freesat" channel with any regular €30 satellite receiver without circumventing any encryption. Freesat UK doesn't even need to know you exist. And it will all be perfectly legal.This is what we currently have. We do have an old Sky box without a card, but the cheap everyday receivers are better in many ways, so we don't use the Sky box anymore.

Yes, if you want a Freesat or Sky subscription, you will need to exhibit a legitimate UK address, and agree to their terms and conditions, which will obige you to use the service solely in the UK. If you don't use the box solely in the UK, then you will be in breach of contract, and technically, Sky may sue you, or otherwise cut off service to you without refund, but you will not be in violation of the law. The thing is, it's almost impossible for them to know where the box is geographically located, so it's all rather academic, as long as you are paying your monthly Sky subscription...

..Who says FreeSat is getting switched off in the summer..

The " big dish " solution for FREESAT does not appear to be viable for many in the SW of Spain and Portugal.
Existing 4mtr dishes it is reported cannot pick up FREESAT C5 off the current Astra sat which will be replaced by the new one in the same position this summer.
As we all know we have been fortunate to date to be able to receive FREESAT which is a UK targeted broadcast.
Of course if SKY does go the same route using the new UK spot beam then SKY viewers will also be in the same boat.
There seem to be some out there be it suggesting the purchase of a bigger dish or a SKY GO subsciption who seek a dubious commercial opportunity taking advantage of those for who UK TV is important.
Buyer be Very Aware until the new sat is launced and we all know what can be viewed and where. I doubt that you will get a refund from any of these suppliers if the equipment you buy does not work or the service you subscibe to shuts down.

I get all these channels for €30 a month from internet UKTV. I am not going to put the suppliers name here in the Canary Isles.But i get 30 channels with 7 day playback.. we lost Sky TV here..

License to Print Money !!
I just googled internet UK TV and came up with a multitude of " services " available to the needy expat.
I clicked on one at random and came up with the following service.
SKY HD + Slingbox.
Initial subscription £670 then £49.95/month.
PLUS your SKY subscription which they will arrange for you ??? ( need I say more ) .
As I posted earlier be very carefull the sea is full of sharks out to get your money.

It isn't going to get switched off but it will become impossible to receive a signal in many parts of southern Spain and especially the Canaries without a very big dish.

The same will apply to the "freesat" channels which people receive on their Sky boxes.

I should have said the current FREESAT broadcast beam is being switched off.

The 5's have already been replaced - moved to a new satellite. The 4's too. We're fortunate enough to still receive it reliably with a 1.6M dish, and I understand people in the north of Spain can receive it reliably with only a 1M dish (which is not big, or expensive). People in the south will probably be stuck with monster dishes, unfortunately.

Like the experts say, we'll see how it goes, but by and large, whatever it takes to receive the 4's and 5's right now will likely be what you can expect when the new satellites are up and running. If you're getting 4's & 5's now, you'll likely get everything else later on. But we'll see.

In any case, it's still not illegal to receive it. No law preventing it. It's completely legal to receive and watch UK Free to air satellite TV in Spain.

Now, if you are breaking the rules of your Sky contract by faking a UK address and watching Sky TV in Spain, then that's a violation of your agreement with Sky, and they theoretically can cut you off or even sue you, but it's still not something the guardia can arrest you for.

It is after all, Sky, who is broadcasting it to you, and you are paying for it. You are not taking it from an alternate source without paying for it, so the law can't claim you are stealing it. You are only violating your agreement with Sky, not violating the law.

Sky is the only one that can take action against you for not obeying their rules, and frankly, even in the highly unlikely event they find out, the most they would do is cut you off, because you can be sure they have much bigger things to worry about than whether you are watching in Spain.

If someone is selling Sky Satellite subscriptions in Spain, well, it's clearly against Sky's policy and Sky might choose to sue them at some point, but the Spanish courts and law enforcement can't make them stop selling it, because it's a matter between them and Sky, and not against any law.

People selling UK TV over the internet is a completely different animal, because they are illegally broadcasting content owned by others without their permission. This is, under the law, a clear copyright infringement enforceable throughout the EU, and they will likely be taken down at some point, or be forced to pay the content owners a hefty royalty, fines, or both, and therefore (if even allowed to stay in business), it will be necessary to demand payment from their customers, or just shut down altogether.

Channels on Freesat (and Sky, and other boxes) come from 4 satellites, each satellite having its own beams. At the last count there were 7 beams.

So which beam is being switched off - as there is not a specific Freesat beam....???

And currently some Freesat channels and even the Freesat EPG data are oo Eutelsat28A, which should be unaffected by Astra satellite changes (unless Freesat decide to move from Eutelsat to Astra!)

Unless you mean that some channels that are available on Freesat may become unavailable in some areas of Spain when they move to their new beams on their new satellites...?

Key point: in some areas. As amideislas has pointed out, some channels are already on their new satellite, and in some areas (Valencia - Alicante) there has not been much change in reception.

Paradoxically, in Barcelona area, whereas before most channels were available on an 80cm dish, to receive the channels on the new satellite now they need a 1.8m+ dish - yes bizarrely the further north in Spain they are they now need a larger dish.


Some ITV1, ITV1+1 regions, C4HD and 4seven, and Five, Five* Five USA (and their timeshifts) have moved.
C4, E4, M4, Film4 have not moved to their new satellite and area still on 1N.

Now my understanding (finally going to post something in the 3 or more threads that have been going on about all of this) is:
- watching UK TV in another country is and the use of a sky card or other providers card in another Eu country is not illegal ( as per landlady v FA case). It is a breach of T&Cs
(AFAIK in the landlady case it was ruled that the matches themselves are not subject to copyright, as they are live, but the FAs logos and graphics are - so showing those graphics without permissions is illegal, even if showing the actual match is not! Which is why the FA started to put a DOG on the screen - and then restricted the number of 3pm games on offer to other Eu broadcasters - to stop all 3pms being shown in the uK via satellite)
- there are no restrictions on the selling or movement of Sky or Freesat boxes in the EU. Only those boxes under contract / T&Cs with Sky as part of their installation or multiroom agreement.
- providing / reselling a sky card or other providers card in another Eu country is not illegal (as per landlady v FA case). It is a breach of T&Cs.
- however, should the TV companies wish to pursue it or not, perhaps (key word) it could be classed as fraud, and thus illegal, (not heard anything about this tact) by saying the card will be used at one address, for it to be used at another address (in the UK or other EU country). This would also apply to Sky Go, saying you will use the service in one place, but using it in another.
- and now recently, the retransmitting of content over the internet without permission from channel owners is illegal, in the same way that retransmitting it over a cable or other network (ie rebroadcasters) has been illegal without permissions.

People selling UK TV over the internet is a completely different animal, because they are illegally broadcasting content owned by others without their permission. This is, under the law, a clear copyright infringement enforceable throughout the EU, and they will likely be taken down at some point, or be forced to pay the content owners a hefty royalty, fines, or both, and therefore (if even allowed to stay in business), it will be necessary to demand payment from their customers, or just shut down altogether.
So what happens to filmon.com .. free UK
Tv programes

sorry but must disagree

A) if you are violating (your word not mine) a contract then you are violating Contract Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contract_law

B) only satellite signals (which are Radio Frequency (RF for short)), like LW/MW/VHF(FM)/UHF radio transmissions "pass through" your property. You are not "consuming" anything.
However, if you are LEGALLY not entitled to receive/resolve/take action on those signals then you may be breaking the law of the country you are residing in if you should listen or watch such transmissions - subject to the law of that country.
If they are Free to Air then that is what they are - just you have no right to complain or compensation if the originator should have the satellite beam altered to stop you from receiving those signals.

C) if you are accessing those signals which are placed on the internet for the convenience of approved subscribers and using an identity hiding device to decieve the provider into giving you the signals then by doing so you could, in theory, be charged with theft in the country where the website originates. That you are not so charged is due to the time, effort and expense of charging you. It is more cost effective to ensure the gatekeepers are improved to stop further access.
However, by doing it to a website in the US could have greater ramifications as this is called Wire Fraud, which is IIRC an extraditable offence and covered by the EU Extradition Agreement with the USA.

Just remember that in all instances YOU made the decision to access the RF signal or Internet website - you were not idly walking past and they hit you over the head with a rubber mallet.

just remember that F***** is under restrictions from a number of legal restraints from US based organisations - one of which is Fox, which is owned by News International - who own the Sky companies.

I have said elsewhere, that anyone - satellite or internet - that is providing Free access this, that and the other, at this time could revert to pay to view without any notice, either wholly or partially. It is unlikely they will be coming forward to compensate any viewer who may lose out on such a change.

This is all part of the early stages of the Internet Revolt, where those who want something for nothing find they will have to pay for just about anything.
That is the future of the media explosion, to get people hooked on their drug and then demand payment.

Currently anyone who is tuned to Astra 2F/2N, the ones currently used by the UK broadcasters for their UK beam may already be unable to receive C5 . When the new Astra sat is launched the UK spot beam will switch to it meaning that anyone who currently cannot receive C5 will also no longer receive the popular UK TV channels ( A larger dish may help some. ) The other sats you mention are not used for the UK spot beam being aimed at markets such as UK forces overseas.
Tests have been carried out using the popular Freesat boxes eg Humax and they cannot receive the other sats you mention.
Freesat channels on Sky may be affected , encrypted Sky channels are still an unknown quantity, will SKY stay with its current Euro beam or also switch to the new limited UK spot beam.

True, but it's up to the contract issuer to enforce it, through a litigation based on contract law. Law enforcement cannot enforce it unless the contractor has succeeded in its litigation against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has been found guilty of contract violation.

Besides, if you receive any of the free to air channels broadcast by the very entities who retain full legal rights to broadcast it, nobody is in violation of any contract, or any law, and therefore, cannot be charged with breach of contract or any violation of law. There is no breach of contract, and no law prohibiting it. It's therefore, legal.

The only means available to say, BBC to prevent their signals from reaching Spain, for example, are:

a) Narrow the beam, making it increasingly difficult to receive outside the intended geographical location,

b) encrypt the signal, which would require that BBC issue complex decryption mechanisms to "subscribers" (presumably anyone who can demonstrate paying TV licence). The costs of this would be massive, and therefore, back to solution a).

No right to complain is quite different than being subject to penalties for receiving them.

Again, if someone is broadcasting content on ANY medium (internet, over the air, satellite, whatever) without any established rights to broadcast it, then they are in violation of the law. Period.

The same would apply if you rented a satellite transponder frequency and broadcast BBC on it without their permission. You'd be dead meat, legally.

Now, if any of the internet broadcasters manage to contract with any of those content providers - whatever deal they make - and abide by the terms of that deal, then they may legally broadcast that content, under the terms of the licence granted by the content owner.

Due to the usual, expected, and extremely normal geographical licencing restrictions routinely imposed in any such agreements, any such internet provider with a legitimate contract/licence to broadcast or otherwise deliver that content to any audience, would be bound to demonstrate every effort to prevent that content from being transmitted to geographical locations beyond the scope of their agreement.

The internet broadcaster therefore has the lion's share of the burden of meeting its obligations, not the consumer.

The consumer, however, I would expect, would be subject to lawful penalties for intentionally defrauding the internet broadcaster through the use of mechanisms that would cause that content to be distributed beyond the geographical limits of the internet broadcaster's agreement with the content providers. That part, I would have to believe, could be enforced by civil law, albeit extremely difficult to enforce on 1000's of individual violators. The more efficient strategy would to go after the illegal internet broadcasters and the proxy providers, and/or to implement better detection technologies.

Robs Satellite is a good site that shows the proposed ( limited ) UK beam ( Freesat ) for the new Astra 2E satellite to be launched in June. It also reports that 1.6mtr dishes in Spain can get signal 50-60% strength on the existing astra 2f to be replaced by 2E. "F and "N are to be moved leaving 2E as the main scource of UK Freesat transmissions.