Fred James

Yes you are, but if you can be bothered to read the Sky contract you will see that the only action Sky can take is to cancel the card's access to the Sky services that they provide.

The Guy

There is no Astra 2N.
And there is not one schedule for many many years yet.
Only up to 2G has been ordered.
Suppose you mean 1N?

Speculation and guesswork. How do you know how a satellite that is not even launched will perform 6 months ahead of its schedule start date?
How do we know the unchanged reception in Valencia to Alicante was either design or fault?
For all we know, 2E may have a fault which mean its UK beam can be received on a 80cm dish in the south of Spain, and in Valencia we will need a 3m dish for it, but for 2F we in Valencia are fine on 80-100cm dishes but you in the south need the larger dishes for it?
Until it has been launched, tested, positioned and transmitting no-one knows for sure, and anything else is speculation.

Even if you have 2 cars of the same make and model, they will not be exactly the same.
And SES have had 6 months to tweak 2E based on what they know about 2F reception and performance - so there is nothing to say 2E and 2F will be exactly the same.
Heck, even "identical twins" are not exactly the same, so 2 satellites will not be exactly the same.

CBS channels, True Movies, Travel Channel, Horror Channel are all on Eutelsat 28A and should be available on a Freesat box.
If you say you cannot receive Eutelsat28A, then your Freesat box will not show any programme data, as that Freesat EPG datastream is on, and only on, Eutelsat28A.
And you should also be able to receive channel on Astra 2A also - QVC for example is on this satellite and on Freesat - if you cannot receive this channel on a humax then you have something seriously wrong with your system somewhere.

What channels are "Freesat channels"?
Freesat do not own or operate any channels.
Freest is only a "portal" - a name on a receiver and the name of a programme guide.
Are you confusing "free to air channels" to mean "Freesat channels" ? They are not the same thing.

There were / are Sky channels on the UK beam - Disney channels, Sky Sports Active channels were on the UK beam on 2D. And it will not be down to Sky, it will be down to the channel operators / owners as to what beams they want to put their channels on. Many channels on the Sky service are nothing to do with Sky.

2E is to launched in July with a operational start date of September (SES Presentation 19th March 2013), but I know this "good site" only mentioned this in the last day or so!

And as for the reaches of the UK beam, the official SES maps, on that site and many other sites, show no data or coverage for the UK beam coverage for 2E 2F and 2G into Spain. Their projections only show the projected dish sizes up to mid France - nothing about Spain at all. So any maps that do is, again, speculation.

And his prediction / proposed maps for 2F were a bit off...

I can get a signal strength of 90% on a 85cm dish for the weakest transponder on the UK beam of 2F where I am.
Mind you I can put another tuner / receiver on and that shows only 50% signal strength for the same transponder.
It all depends on location, dish size, dish alignment, LNB, cabling and tuner. And unless everyone measures using exactly the same equipment, comparisons are pointless.

Until 2E is operational, no-one knows what it will be like in Spain, and so you cannot compare 2E with 2F. Anyone that does is speculating.

2F will not be moving from 28 east, as it was always designed for that slot for UK TV. Along with 2E and 2G.
2F will not be replaced by 2E. They will be at 28 east together with 2G, and Eutelsat 28a (and maybe eutelsat28b)
2N does not exist. There is no satellite with an Astra 2N designation.
1N was always designed for 19 east, and will move to 19 east once 2E is in place. That has always been the plan.

Domino

My statement of fact is not supplier specific
Every contract is different, it is up to the person who is wronged to take the action they deem necessary, if cancellation of the card is the only remedy they wish to take then that is up to Sky.
Others make much louder noises about legal action and the person breaking the contract being hit with damages and legal costs.

But generally it is not worth the time, effort and expense - or the resultant publicity - at this time to chase the consumer, just deactivate the card.

EMR

Guy.

First yes 2N should be 1N slip of the keyboard.

Lets look at what we can agree on I hope .

1) 9O% of the viewers of FREESAT are really only interested in the UK broadcasters BBC, ITV. C4/E4 and C5, the rest are a bonus of sorts.
2) It is these main Uk Signals that will switch to the UK spot beam as C5 has already
3) The BBC made a statement last year confirming the reduced European coverage and inproved UK coverage
4) Astra 2F is already broadcasting on the UK reduced beam and C5 has been lost in many parts of Europe.
5) The are numerous reports of reception loss from Astra 2F. The general view is that if you have already lost C5 unless you are in an area where a larger dish are already receiving it then you will also not be able to watch the main UK channels when they switch to Astra 2E. The maps on Robs Satellite site ( one of many ) are a good indication.
Some areas even a mega dish will not work.

You are right that until the late summer when the final switch over is made there is an element of doubt , the launch could fail.

But on the balance of probablities from August 2013 many tens of thousands
expat viewers of the main UK channels will have to make new arrangements, buy new equipment or accept the loss of their favourite soaps.

I repeat again however do not be convinced to change anything until at least July ( launch of Astra 2E ) and then be carefull.

MikeJ

Correct - up to a point. It would be a violation of criminal law if you commit fraud. Contracts are covered by Civil Law - and as such breach of contract is illegal (under civil law). Civil Law codes have (to a very large extent) been harmonised across the EU.
What BAT is trying to say is that the ECJ ruling trumps both Civil Law (in all MS's) and Copyright Law (Internationally) -which is patently absurd (no pun intended).

amideislas

Exactly, fraud is not legal (well, ok, there are some frauds committed with full government complicity, which could be arguably be considered legal, but that's another discussion)

But breach of contract requires that it be first established that breach has been committed, which is the burden of the breached entity, obliged to collect evidence, and then file a complaint in civil court. Somebody has to file a complaint against you, and even then it's all subject to due process.

In other words, the guardia civil can't simply raid your home and arrest you because you have a Sky box and a satellite dish, or because you have a computer. Neither of which are illegal.

If you breach an agreement, the conflict is solely between you and Sky (or whoever you've breached the agreement with), and NOT the law. The offended party may (or may not) choose to litigate it in court. Or in the case of Sky, they may simply choose to cut you off rather than waste their resources. But it's still not a violation of law. It's a violation of your contract with Sky, which can technically be litigated for damages (although they'd almost certainly just cut you off and forget it).

Look, I'm not suggesting that it's somehow OK to defraud anyone or breach agreements. We already have too much of that. We could use a lot less of it (and certainly less belief that it's somehow ok).

I'm only pointing out that it's perfectly legal to receive UK TV in Spain, as long as it cannot be established that you are stealing anything. If you breach your contract with sky, well, yes, you are subject to litigation, albeit a very small risk of that.

I'd also like to express my opinion that many of the cowboy builder workarounds people discuss here are likely not going to be available to you forever, as most of them will likely eventually be sued into oblivion, and will likely be shut down or in the most optimistic case, their business models changed dramatically, and you'll start paying for it.

In my experience, the simplest things are usually the best solutions. Unfortunately, simplicity is sometimes the most expensive. As a testament, you can indeed legally receive all the free to air UK channels you want by satellite - reliably, and with all the bells and whistles - as long as you are able to afford the increasingly expensive kit to receive it (and have space for it).

Otherwise, unfortunately, you're probably out of luck, unless of course, you choose the more complicated, less reliable, and less legal route.

Saxy

Has anyone bothered to read the posts on TVCatchups forum. They explain things from their point of view regarding copyright, and appear very confident in the High Courts final judjment.
It will be very interesting to see the other companies reaction to the judgment, when it finally arrives in a few years time. Remember all of this started in 2008!

EMR

To paraphase a statement from a notorious court case in the past, ,
" Well they would wouldn't they ".

The Guy

And an internet TV system in the states, that streams us channels without permission, have had their appeal upheld...much to the annoyance of the tv companies!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...orks-tv-online

EMR

It is not streaming as we have been discussing, the company in question charges a monthly fee and provides an antenna to customers so that they can receive their signals.
It is just one round in what will be a long and expensive fight, my money is on the big guys NBC , CBS etc, as it should be.

EMR

It has been posted elsewhere that this forum has signed up with EXPAT TV.

Mods what can you tell us ???

Saxy

Having been successful in the High Courts judgments in their favour (pre ECJ), I suppose that they would.

EMR

I interpret the rulings very differently as do the TV companies.
Its just the start of a long battle.

New scenario. the TV companies lose the rights to their programs, so the advertisers reduce their spend as fewer viewers watch mainstream TV..
WIth less revenue the number and quality of programs declines, fewer viewers even less advertising revenue.
You end up with TV of the quality of many of the smaller European countries.
No expensive series like Game of Thrones etc, just shoestring budget game shows.
A typical I want something for nothing scenario.
Freedom to broadcast is all a load of B8**8888, these companies are just out to get the gullible on board then the charges " for extras appear. They are a business out to make a profit from YOU!!
Where as mainstream broadcasting ( no subscription ) is funded by advertising and progam sales, Yes the BBC receives finance from government in place of advertising revenue ( for the time being ).
It costs me nothing apart from my TV license to watch mainstream UK TV where as I know that should I switch to an internet re broadcaster the cost will grow and grow and grow.

BAT7311

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice
the European Court of Justice is the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union institution it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its equal application across all EU member states.[1]

""which is patently absurd"" blimy you have no idea about where you live and how the world works ???y
The Court of Justice cooperates with all the courts of the Member States, which are the ordinary courts in matters of European Union law. To ensure the effective and uniform application of European Union legislation and to prevent divergent interpretations, the national courts may, and sometimes must, refer to the Court of Justice and ask it to clarify a point concerning the interpretation of EU law, so that they may ascertain, for example, whether their national legislation complies with that law. A reference for a preliminary ruling may also seek the review of the validity of an act of EU law.
The Court of Justice's reply is not merely an opinion, but takes the form of a judgment or reasoned order. The national court to which it is addressed is, in deciding the dispute before it, bound by the interpretation given. The Court's judgment likewise binds other national courts before which the same problem is raised.

BAT7311

WAR OVER ! it went to the HIGHEST COURT IN EUROPE
they said each transmission or retransmission of that work using a specific
technical means must, as a rule, be individually authorised by its author.
ITV said

The spokeswoman said: "ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 welcome the judgment by the European court of justice. The judgment makes it clear that, subject to some limited defences, broadcasters and content producers should be able to prevent unauthorised streaming of free-to-air channels.

"We now look forward to the UK court's implementation of this judgment. We reserve the right to pursue any site or service we believe to be infringing our copyright or using our content in an unlicensed, illegal capacity." if in doubt please ring TLS on 0044 20 7157 3000 ask for on-line legal team ,try SHARON FOSTER