I see Aldi are offering a 'mini' satellite receiver system for 80 Euro
(in Ireland). Lidl had similar two weeks ago.

A friend installed the Lidl system and he tells me that the reception
is perfect on any channel he has tried; even stuff clearly meant for
the Mediterranean and North Africa.

The dish seems a good bit smaller than those you normally see on
houses. How come the smaller size is adequate?

Or, put it another way, why the larger dishes installed for Sky etc.
if smaller would do? I did ask him about the performance in heavy
rain, but we've had none yet.

Just curious. We're in North West Ireland.

TIA,

Jon C.

On Jun 8, 12:40 pm, wrote:
I see Aldi are offering a 'mini' satellite receiver system for 80 Euro
(in Ireland). Lidl had similar two weeks ago.

A friend installed the Lidl system and he tells me that the reception
is perfect on any channel he has tried; even stuff clearly meant for
the Mediterranean and North Africa.

The dish seems a good bit smaller than those you normally see on
houses. How come the smaller size is adequate?

Or, put it another way, why the larger dishes installed for Sky etc.
if smaller would do? I did ask him about the performance in heavy
rain, but we've had none yet.

Just curious. We're in North West Ireland.

TIA,

Jon C.

It doesn't look any more mini than the regular sky mini-dishes

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:40:56 -0000 someone who may be
wrote this:-

The dish seems a good bit smaller than those you normally see on
houses. How come the smaller size is adequate?

Alignment is supposedly more critical with the smaller dishes, but
they should pick up things well. As you hinted, they might not work
so well as a larger dish in heavy rain.

I found one of the camping kits in Lidl earlier this week. 30 pounds
for the kit and an extra 7 pounds 50 pence for an 80cm dish, a
bargain. It works well, though the options on the receiver are a
little limited. I intend to play with the little dish over the
weekend and see how well it works.

It is only when more people install this sort of thing themselves
that the Rupert Murdoch stranglehold on satellite in the UK will be
broken. The idea of having someone fit equipment for a subscription
service, or fit equipment for 150 pounds and a 20 pound for two
years card for "free" television stations must make people from the
mainland laugh as their idea of satellite television is to buy a kit
from a supermarket.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 8 Jun, 13:18, David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:40:56 -0000 someone who may be
wrote this:-

The dish seems a good bit smaller than those you normally see on
houses. How come the smaller size is adequate?

Alignment is supposedly more critical with the smaller dishes, but
they should pick up things well. As you hinted, they might not work
so well as a larger dish in heavy rain.

I found one of the camping kits in Lidl earlier this week. 30 pounds
for the kit and an extra 7 pounds 50 pence for an 80cm dish, a
bargain. It works well, though the options on the receiver are a
little limited. I intend to play with the little dish over the
weekend and see how well it works.

It is only when more people install this sort of thing themselves
that the Rupert Murdoch stranglehold on satellite in the UK will be
broken. The idea of having someone fit equipment for a subscription
service, or fit equipment for 150 pounds and a 20 pound for two
years card for "free" television stations must make people from the
mainland laugh as their idea of satellite television is to buy a kit
from a supermarket.

By mainland, do you mean the South Island (Europe)?

Don't forget that you can't get C4 or any of the five channels on
these FTA kits at the moment, also Murdoch doesn't have a stranglehold
on satellite in the uk, it's perfectly possible to DIY with either a
FTA receiver, or a Sky Digibox bought off ebay or wherever. Though
again , if you want BB8 etc you have to get the £20 FTV card.

On 2007-06-08 13:18:40 +0100, David Hansen
said:

It is only when more people install this sort of thing themselves
that the Rupert Murdoch stranglehold on satellite in the UK will be
broken.

No it won't.

Who has rights to the content? it's that which controls it, not the
technology



The idea of having someone fit equipment for a subscription
service, or fit equipment for 150 pounds and a 20 pound for two
years card for "free" television stations must make people from the
mainland laugh as their idea of satellite television is to buy a kit
from a supermarket.

On Jun 8, 1:18 pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:40:56 -0000 someone who may be
wrote this:-

The dish seems a good bit smaller than those you normally see on
houses. How come the smaller size is adequate?

Alignment is supposedly more critical with the smaller dishes, but
they should pick up things well. As you hinted, they might not work
so well as a larger dish in heavy rain.

I found one of the camping kits in Lidl earlier this week. 30 pounds
for the kit and an extra 7 pounds 50 pence for an 80cm dish, a
bargain. It works well, though the options on the receiver are a
little limited. I intend to play with the little dish over the
weekend and see how well it works.

[Apologies in advance if this appears twice, posting via Google
Groups.]

Thanks. And to adder1969. My question wasn't a particularly
intelligent; a little Googling informed me of the range of dishes and
sizes available.

So you bought the camping kit and replaced the 'mini' dish with an
80-cm?

You mention above that alignment is more critical for smaller dishes;
my friend mentioned that too. The larger the dish, the narrower, and
larger magnitude, will be the 'gain' main lobe; so would it not be the
opposite? That (my last statement) has to be nonsense, but maybe you
can follow the reasoning; there has to be some paradox.

Best regards,

Jon C.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:30:19 -0000 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Don't forget that you can't get C4 or any of the five channels on
these FTA kits at the moment,

Indeed. At one time even the BBC was tied in to a "deal" with Rupert
Murdoch. However, things are changing.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:12:00 -0000 someone who may be
wrote this:-

So you bought the camping kit

Yes.

and replaced the 'mini' dish with an 80-cm?

No. The 80cm one was beside the kit in the shop and cost 7 pounds
50, so it was worthwhile getting. The smaller dish could have one of
several uses depending on inclination.

You mention above that alignment is more critical for smaller dishes;
my friend mentioned that too. The larger the dish, the narrower, and
larger magnitude, will be the 'gain' main lobe; so would it not be the
opposite? That (my last statement) has to be nonsense, but maybe you
can follow the reasoning; there has to be some paradox.

I have not yet had a the chance to play with the smaller dish.
However, a smaller dish is less likely to be able to focus enough of
the signal to get a good picture, thus alignment is more critical.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:01:45 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

It is only when more people install this sort of thing themselves
that the Rupert Murdoch stranglehold on satellite in the UK will be
broken.

No it won't.

Who has rights to the content? it's that which controls it, not the
technology

But the vast majority see satellite TV as Sky only and subscription. Not
simply as another means of receiving television (and radio) broadcasts,
with equipment you can buy and install yourself.

Maybe when the BBC/ITV Freesat service launches things will change a
little.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:22:02 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

But the vast majority see satellite TV as Sky only and subscription. Not
simply as another means of receiving television (and radio) broadcasts,
with equipment you can buy and install yourself.

That is precisely the point. Many people are simply unaware of the
DIY option, even though for a relatively low price and a very
slightly more complicated installation those with freeview problems
can get some (and eventually all I presume) of the channels a
different way. On the mainland this is what people do and I don't
see why it should be any different in the UK.

As for Rupert Murdoch charging twenty pounds for a card to watch
free channels; that's nice business if you can get it, but
eventually people will learn that it is a rip-off.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2007-06-08 15:45:48 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:22:02 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

But the vast majority see satellite TV as Sky only and subscription. Not
simply as another means of receiving television (and radio) broadcasts,
with equipment you can buy and install yourself.

That is precisely the point. Many people are simply unaware of the
DIY option, even though for a relatively low price and a very
slightly more complicated installation those with freeview problems
can get some (and eventually all I presume) of the channels a
different way. On the mainland this is what people do and I don't
see why it should be any different in the UK.

As for Rupert Murdoch charging twenty pounds for a card to watch
free channels; that's nice business if you can get it, but
eventually people will learn that it is a rip-off.

So who should pay for the supply and administration of this and the use
of the satellite capacity?

Andy Hall wrote:

So who should pay for the supply and administration of this and the use
of the satellite capacity?


The satellite is not affected by the number of users pointing at it.

F

--
"One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well."
(Virginia Woolf)

On Jun 8, 2:21 pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:12:00 -0000 someone who may be
wrote this:-

So you bought the camping kit

Yes.

and replaced the 'mini' dish with an 80-cm?

No. The 80cm one was beside the kit in the shop and cost 7 pounds
50, so it was worthwhile getting. The smaller dish could have one of
several uses depending on inclination.

You mention above that alignment is more critical for smaller dishes;
my friend mentioned that too. The larger the dish, the narrower, and
larger magnitude, will be the 'gain' main lobe; so would it not be the
opposite? That (my last statement) has to be nonsense, but maybe you
can follow the reasoning; there has to be some paradox.

I have not yet had a the chance to play with the smaller dish.
However, a smaller dish is less likely to be able to focus enough of
the signal to get a good picture, thus alignment is more critical.

--

...and if you get a really large dish the focus is more concentrated so
alignment is critical. The medium sized (60-70cm) "blurry-focussed"
dishes are no so critical.

On 2007-06-08 16:49:36 +0100, Galet said:

Andy Hall wrote:

So who should pay for the supply and administration of this and the use
of the satellite capacity?


The satellite is not affected by the number of users pointing at it.

F

So you think that it should be free for everybody?

Tell that to the TV licensing people.

Andy Hall wrote:

As for Rupert Murdoch charging twenty pounds for a card to watch
free channels; that's nice business if you can get it, but
eventually people will learn that it is a rip-off.

So who should pay for the supply and administration of this and the use
of the satellite capacity?

Sky charge 20 quid for a card to un-encrypt Channel 4 and 5. Those two
broadcasters for programming rights reasons, encrypt their satellite
broadcasts to avoid (in theory) reception outside of the UK. They have chosen
Sky's encryption system, because the vast majority of satellite boxes in use
in the UK are Sky Digiboxes. Sky's encryption scheme is proprietary, called
VideoGuard, and unlike other systems no external CAM etc exists or can be used.
The VideoGuard CAM is hardware and software embedded into Sky's boxes.
This is what many consider to be anti-competitive, Sky charge C4 and 5 for use
of their encryption system, they are not obliged to use it, though it's
thought Sky present them with a 'good deal'. If they dropped the encryption,
they'd have to re-negotiate their programming and film rights. Most probably
the increase of cost of this outweighs what Uncle Rupert charges them for
encryption.

The BBC decided in July 2003 not to play this silly game any more, and ditched
Sky's encryption, ITV followed in Nov 2005. Therefore both those broadcasters
are available for viewing on any make of satellite receiver. It is rumoured
however that Sky still charge them a fortune for full regional inclusion on
Sky's EPG. Remember both broadcasters have about 25 regions, in order for the
correct regions to appear on a Sky box in a given area, Sky have to map each
viewer's viewing card.

As far as payment for the satellite capacity goes, BBC, ITV, and C4 all pay
SES Astra directly, and up-link directly themselves. None of that is passed on
etc to Sky.
C5 are different, Sky uplink them, and they 'sub rent' the satellite's
capacity to C5.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember David Hansen
saying something like:

Alignment is supposedly more critical with the smaller dishes,

Other way round - the beamwidth of the large dishes is much narrower and
hence alignment is more critical. What helps a lot with smaller dishes
these days is a huge improvement is LNB design, allowing the use of
smaller dishes than would have been considered acceptable just a couple
of years ago.
--

Dave

Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

As for Rupert Murdoch charging twenty pounds for a card to watch
free channels; that's nice business if you can get it, but
eventually people will learn that it is a rip-off.

So who should pay for the supply and administration of this and the
use of the satellite capacity?

Sky charge 20 quid for a card to un-encrypt Channel 4 and 5. Those two
broadcasters for programming rights reasons, encrypt their satellite
broadcasts to avoid (in theory) reception outside of the UK. They
have chosen Sky's encryption system, because the vast majority of
satellite boxes in use in the UK are Sky Digiboxes. Sky's encryption
scheme is proprietary, called VideoGuard, and unlike other systems no
external CAM etc exists or can be used.


A CAM is availible for Sky using a PC

--
ThePunisher

On Jun 9, 7:51 pm, "ThePunisher" wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

As for Rupert Murdoch charging twenty pounds for a card to watch
free channels; that's nice business if you can get it, but
eventually people will learn that it is a rip-off.

So who should pay for the supply and administration of this and the
use of the satellite capacity?

Sky charge 20 quid for a card to un-encrypt Channel 4 and 5. Those two
broadcasters for programming rights reasons, encrypt their satellite
broadcasts to avoid (in theory) reception outside of the UK. They
have chosen Sky's encryption system, because the vast majority of
satellite boxes in use in the UK are Sky Digiboxes. Sky's encryption
scheme is proprietary, called VideoGuard, and unlike other systems no
external CAM etc exists or can be used.

A CAM is availible for Sky using a PC

Dragon CAM ? Still needs 'refreshing' in a puka Sky box at regular
intervals AIUI.

Mark Carver wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:51 pm, "ThePunisher" wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

As for Rupert Murdoch charging twenty pounds for a card to watch
free channels; that's nice business if you can get it, but
eventually people will learn that it is a rip-off.

So who should pay for the supply and administration of this and the
use of the satellite capacity?

Sky charge 20 quid for a card to un-encrypt Channel 4 and 5. Those
two broadcasters for programming rights reasons, encrypt their
satellite broadcasts to avoid (in theory) reception outside of the
UK. They have chosen Sky's encryption system, because the vast
majority of satellite boxes in use in the UK are Sky Digiboxes.
Sky's encryption scheme is proprietary, called VideoGuard, and
unlike other systems no external CAM etc exists or can be used.

A CAM is availible for Sky using a PC

Dragon CAM ? Still needs 'refreshing' in a puka Sky box at regular
intervals AIUI.

Correct and needs a current subscription, but it still works.

--
ThePunisher