Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.tech.digital-tv > #249575 > unrolled thread

Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals

Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.digital-tv

Contents

  Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-01 11:35 +0000
    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-01 15:54 +0100
      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-01 17:47 +0100
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-07-15 23:16 +0100
          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-16 09:53 +0100
            Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-07-16 11:01 +0100
              Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals SH <i.love@spam.com> - 2026-07-16 19:00 +0100
                Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-07-16 22:34 +0100
                  Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals SH <i.love@spam.com> - 2026-07-17 08:24 +0100
                    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-07-18 04:29 +0100
                      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-18 07:43 +0000
                        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-18 11:17 +0100
                          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-18 10:53 +0000
                            Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-18 12:48 +0100
                              Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-18 13:47 +0100
                                Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-07-18 14:25 +0100
                                  Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-18 14:37 +0100
                                Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-18 14:42 +0100
                                  Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-18 16:16 +0100
                                    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Laurence Taylor <laurence@nospam.plus.com> - 2026-07-18 17:07 +0100
                                      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-18 18:07 +0100
                                        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-18 19:36 +0100
                                          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-07-18 18:46 +0000
                                          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-19 09:12 +0100
                                        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-19 08:35 +0100
                                          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals jon <reading.mostly@crap.org> - 2026-07-19 16:02 +0000
                          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-18 13:42 +0100
                            Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-18 14:55 +0100
                              Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-18 15:17 +0000
                              Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-07-19 00:24 +0100
                                Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-19 08:54 +0100
                                  Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-19 10:22 +0100
                      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 20:32 +0100
                        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-07-25 22:25 +0100
                          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-26 07:15 +0100
                            Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-07-26 08:39 +0100
                              Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-07-26 15:49 +0100
                                Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-26 17:44 +0100
                                  Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-07-26 22:15 +0100
    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-07-01 16:29 +0100
      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-01 16:21 +0000
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-07-01 17:35 +0100
    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-01 18:16 +0100
      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-01 18:42 +0100
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-02 07:55 +0000
    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-07-02 12:28 +0100
      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-02 13:46 +0000
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-03 09:17 +0100
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-07-03 18:51 +0100
          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-03 19:17 +0100
            Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-04 11:54 +0100
    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2026-07-03 15:31 +0100
      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2026-07-03 15:35 +0100
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-07-03 17:06 +0100
          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2026-07-03 23:17 +0100
    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2026-07-09 18:26 +0100
      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-07-09 22:34 +0100
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-10 08:43 +0100
          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-10 09:51 +0100
      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-10 08:48 +0000
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-10 11:20 +0100
          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-10 11:00 +0000
          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-10 16:52 +0100
            Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-10 18:33 +0100
              Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2026-07-15 22:01 +0100
                Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-17 09:01 +0100
                  Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-17 12:15 +0100
                    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-18 07:56 +0100
                      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-18 08:34 +0100
                        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-20 07:31 +0100
    Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-07-27 07:33 +0100
      Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-27 07:53 +0000
        Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-07-27 10:32 +0100
          Re: Non Freesat box to Receive Satellite Signals "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-27 11:00 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#249666

On 18/07/2026 17:07, Laurence Taylor wrote:
> On 18/07/2026 16:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> 
>> It's not the need to have accounts that I am concerned about, it's the
>> necessity to watch or record broadcast services to somebody else's
>> timetable instead of your own. With online services you don't need to
>> record anything; the recordings are all there, whenever you want them.
> 
> Until they aren't, and you find you can't watch what you want because
> it's been taken down. I prefer to have physical posession of stuff.

Six years ago a car took out the BT cabinet here with all the DSLAM 
equipment in it. There were 176 households (including mine) with no 
internet connection for a week. A couple of years later an SSE crew cut 
through the BT cables to half-a-dozen or so houses here. I was without 
broadband internet for a couple of days. I do have a mobile phone, but 
it only has 10GB a month allowance. There's not too much you could 
stream with that.

-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249667

Jeff Layman wrote:

> I do have a mobile phone, but it only has 10GB a month allowance. 
> There's not too much you could stream with that.

But it'd let you buy a SIM with a larger allowance ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249668

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:

>> I do have a mobile phone, but it only has 10GB a month allowance. 
>> There's not too much you could stream with that.

> But it'd let you buy a SIM with a larger allowance ...

Most providers let you buy a (temporary) data boost of some kind, which is
what I did when a woman showing off her new Beemer totalled (as in ‘totally
flattened’) the local cabinet. It was quite interesting seeing what new
WiFi networks sprung up as a result.

-- 
Spike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249672

On 18/07/2026 19:36, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
> 
>> I do have a mobile phone, but it only has 10GB a month allowance.
>> There's not too much you could stream with that.
> 
> But it'd let you buy a SIM with a larger allowance ...

True, but several months ago I "lost" mobile internet here. It was very 
odd; When I first turned my phone on early in the morning, the 
connection was fine (over 15Mbps). Over the next couple of hours I 
slowly lost the connection (the phone still connected without issue over 
wifi using my landline broadband. It also worked perfectly for text and 
phone calls). Eventually, it stopped accessing the internet completely. 
Next morning things were ok, and then dropped off again - and so on.

After a few days I called into the local Vodafone shop (15km away). They 
tested the phone and it connected ok, and also said there was nothing 
wrong with the mast I used at home. When I got home I lost the 
connection over the next couple of hours.

A week later I was in a city about the same distance away and went into 
the larger Voda shop there. I recounted the problem, and they again 
tested the phone and said it was ok. They also checked the information 
for my (home) mast and said it was ok, but also said I should report the 
issue online to Voda (which I'd already done).

When I got home the connection remained ok, and the next morning was 
fine too, and has remained that way since. Coincidence after calling 
into the second Voda shop?

All I'm trying to point out is that within the last few years I've lost 
broadband/mobile connection several times. For the previous 50 years or 
so with analogue and now digital terrestrial TV, the only time I lost a 
signal was after the great storm of 1987 which "realigned" my TV aerial.

-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249670

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 18:07:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 18/07/2026 17:07, Laurence Taylor wrote:
>> On 18/07/2026 16:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> 
>>> It's not the need to have accounts that I am concerned about, it's the
>>> necessity to watch or record broadcast services to somebody else's
>>> timetable instead of your own. With online services you don't need to
>>> record anything; the recordings are all there, whenever you want them.
>> 
>> Until they aren't, and you find you can't watch what you want because
>> it's been taken down. I prefer to have physical posession of stuff.
>
>Six years ago a car took out the BT cabinet here with all the DSLAM 
>equipment in it. There were 176 households (including mine) with no 
>internet connection for a week. A couple of years later an SSE crew cut 
>through the BT cables to half-a-dozen or so houses here. I was without 
>broadband internet for a couple of days. I do have a mobile phone, but 
>it only has 10GB a month allowance. There's not too much you could 
>stream with that.

I have a mobile phone bundle that gives me unlimited calls and texts
and 3GB data for £5 per month. This is enough for my normal usage, but
there's an app on my phone with which I can check at any time how much
data has been used, and buy more on a one-off basis or upgrade to a
different bundle. In other words, my 'allowance' can be whatever I
want it to be, and I'm in control of it.

And if I ever have to be without the use of the internet for any
length of time, I still know how to read books.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249674

On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 08:35:24 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 18:07:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>On 18/07/2026 17:07, Laurence Taylor wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2026 16:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It's not the need to have accounts that I am concerned about, it's
>>>> the necessity to watch or record broadcast services to somebody
>>>> else's timetable instead of your own. With online services you don't
>>>> need to record anything; the recordings are all there, whenever you
>>>> want them.
>>> 
>>> Until they aren't, and you find you can't watch what you want because
>>> it's been taken down. I prefer to have physical posession of stuff.
>>
>>Six years ago a car took out the BT cabinet here with all the DSLAM
>>equipment in it. There were 176 households (including mine) with no
>>internet connection for a week. A couple of years later an SSE crew cut
>>through the BT cables to half-a-dozen or so houses here. I was without
>>broadband internet for a couple of days. I do have a mobile phone, but
>>it only has 10GB a month allowance. There's not too much you could
>>stream with that.
> 
> I have a mobile phone bundle that gives me unlimited calls and texts and
> 3GB data for £5 per month. This is enough for my normal usage, but
> there's an app on my phone with which I can check at any time how much
> data has been used, and buy more on a one-off basis or upgrade to a
> different bundle. In other words, my 'allowance' can be whatever I want
> it to be, and I'm in control of it.
> 
> And if I ever have to be without the use of the internet for any length
> of time, I still know how to read books.
> 
> Rod.

My phone auto connects to the hub and uses my internet connection whilst I 
am at home.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249657

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 11:17:16 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>>> I've been thinking about restoring TV to the property for some time.
>> 
>> Is it worth it? Broadcast TV is closing down and being replaced with
>> streamed TV, you'd be better of with Freely or a decent streaming device,
>> assuming you have a decent Internet connection.
>
>Closing down *when*? Apart from The Guardian article 
>(<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/29/as-most-tv-viewers-tune-in-via-broadband-will-2034-signal-the-death-of-freeview>), 
>now approaching six months old, there seems to have been nothing 
>official on the subject. 

There doesn't need to be anything 'official' about it for the future
of conventional broadcasting to be clear. The only thing in doubt is
the time frame. Fibre to the home offers so many potential features
with which one-way broadcasting by radio transmission cannot compete
that it can only be a matter of time before it completely replaces all
other communication and entertainment services in our homes.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249662

On 18/07/2026 13:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 11:17:16 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>>> I've been thinking about restoring TV to the property for some time.
>>>
>>> Is it worth it? Broadcast TV is closing down and being replaced with
>>> streamed TV, you'd be better of with Freely or a decent streaming device,
>>> assuming you have a decent Internet connection.
>>
>> Closing down *when*? Apart from The Guardian article
>> (<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/29/as-most-tv-viewers-tune-in-via-broadband-will-2034-signal-the-death-of-freeview>),
>> now approaching six months old, there seems to have been nothing
>> official on the subject.
> 
> There doesn't need to be anything 'official' about it for the future
> of conventional broadcasting to be clear. The only thing in doubt is
> the time frame. 

But that's the point. Until a time is announced there is *no* change!

Fibre to the home offers so many potential features
> with which one-way broadcasting by radio transmission cannot compete
> that it can only be a matter of time before it completely replaces all
> other communication and entertainment services in our homes.

No FTTP here, just FTTC. I'm pretty sure that Openreach's December 2026 
date will be passed for me and many others. Not that I need FTTP; FTTC 
is quite enough to stream UHD.

It offers many more potential features to the broadcasters, programme 
makers, advertisers, and data collectors than it does to the viewers. 
Streaming on demand for /all/ programmes is not available present, but 
perhaps will be in the future, and that is the only "advantage" I can 
see. What other features do you see that are not already available on 
the internet to any broadband user?

How will the viewer find out about new programmes other than endless 
adverts/trailers which already seem to fill in-between programme spaces, 
even (or should that be particularly!) on the BBC. Will we be getting a 
"Streaming Now and in Future" guide, with those able to pay more for 
premium spaces getting the best position to push their new programmes? I 
already find iPlayer annoying because it pushes what it thinks I should 
be watching rather than what I want to watch. I pay for the paper Radio 
Times because I find every EPG I find on line far more difficult to scan 
through in the same way that I can do with the RT.

-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249663

On 18/07/2026 in message <113g0k6$3cb20$3@dont-email.me> Jeff Layman wrote:

>On 18/07/2026 13:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 11:17:16 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>I've been thinking about restoring TV to the property for some time.
>>>>
>>>>Is it worth it? Broadcast TV is closing down and being replaced with
>>>>streamed TV, you'd be better of with Freely or a decent streaming 
>>>>device,
>>>>assuming you have a decent Internet connection.
>>>
>>>Closing down when? Apart from The Guardian article
>>>(<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/29/as-most-tv-viewers-tune-in-via-broadband-will-2034-signal-the-death-of-freeview>),
>>>now approaching six months old, there seems to have been nothing
>>>official on the subject.
>>
>>There doesn't need to be anything 'official' about it for the future
>>of conventional broadcasting to be clear. The only thing in doubt is
>>the time frame.
>
>But that's the point. Until a time is announced there is no change!

We know a change is coming in the not too distant future, I made the 
choice not to invest in any more broadcast kit (aerial or receivers) but 
am concentrating on streaming kit.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
We chose to do this not because it is easy but because we thought it would 
be easy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249669

On 18/07/2026 14:55, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 18/07/2026 13:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 11:17:16 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've been thinking about restoring TV to the property for some time.
>>>>
>>>> Is it worth it? Broadcast TV is closing down and being replaced with
>>>> streamed TV, you'd be better of with Freely or a decent streaming 
>>>> device,
>>>> assuming you have a decent Internet connection.
>>>
>>> Closing down *when*? Apart from The Guardian article
>>> (<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/29/as-most-tv-viewers-tune-in-via-broadband-will-2034-signal-the-death-of-freeview>),
>>> now approaching six months old, there seems to have been nothing
>>> official on the subject.
>>
>> There doesn't need to be anything 'official' about it for the future
>> of conventional broadcasting to be clear. The only thing in doubt is
>> the time frame. 
> 
> But that's the point. Until a time is announced there is *no* change!
> 

Its pretty much written in the contracts. The transmitters are owned by 
Arqiva. The BBCs contracts expire in 2030, ITV in 2034. There is no way 
these contracts will be renewed in their current form. The broadcasters 
don't want it. Arqiva have proposed a reduced service, with three 
multiplexes rather than the current six, but the broadcasters are 
arguing for a total move to streaming.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2026/06/09/arqiva-proposes-slimmed-down-freeview-network-through-to-2045/

so things will change from 2034, its just how much will they change.

> Fibre to the home offers so many potential features
>> with which one-way broadcasting by radio transmission cannot compete
>> that it can only be a matter of time before it completely replaces all
>> other communication and entertainment services in our homes.
> 
> No FTTP here, just FTTC. I'm pretty sure that Openreach's December 2026 
> date will be passed for me and many others. Not that I need FTTP; FTTC 
> is quite enough to stream UHD.
>

The January 2027 deadline is not about the demise of FTTC it is about 
the demise of the PSTN. So if you still have a real telephone you won't 
have by then. Yes it might look like a real telephone, and fit in the 
wall socket, but it will be converted to VOIP in the "Exchange" and you 
will have to dial the full number.

FTTC is not scheduled to be retired until 2030...


> It offers many more potential features to the broadcasters, programme 
> makers, advertisers, and data collectors than it does to the viewers. 
> Streaming on demand for /all/ programmes is not available present, but 
> perhaps will be in the future, and that is the only "advantage" I can 
> see. What other features do you see that are not already available on 
> the internet to any broadband user?
> 

which as well as the costs, is why the broadcasters want to ditch 
broadcast TV

> How will the viewer find out about new programmes other than endless 
> adverts/trailers which already seem to fill in-between programme spaces, 
> even (or should that be particularly!) on the BBC. Will we be getting a 
> "Streaming Now and in Future" guide, with those able to pay more for 
> premium spaces getting the best position to push their new programmes? I 
> already find iPlayer annoying because it pushes what it thinks I should 
> be watching rather than what I want to watch. I pay for the paper Radio 
> Times because I find every EPG I find on line far more difficult to scan 
> through in the same way that I can do with the RT.

The demise of broadcast TV isn't the same as the demise of linear TV. 
Perhaps Radio Times will continue.

I think one thing which you didn't mention, perhaps you are not aware of 
is "Freely" which is replacing YouView/Freeview Play on many new TVs.

It delivers a hybrid broadcast/streamed equivalent of almost all of the 
Freeview channels so could provide a transparent migration from linear 
broadcast to linear streamed TV.

You can already simply connect a Freely set to the Internet and it will 
deliver the vast majority of Freeview channels over the internet.
If you connect an antenna it will select the off-air signals.

So if you have a TV with Freely its already equipped to provide a 
seamless transition from broadcast TV to Streamed Linear TV.

That bastion of the UK press "The Times" already publishes sections 
entitled "The best on Netflix/Sky/Disney+/Prime/...."
> 

By the way, I must say I am not great at predicting the future so your 
vision might be truer..

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249671

On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 00:24:27 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:

>The January 2027 deadline is not about the demise of FTTC it is about 
>the demise of the PSTN. So if you still have a real telephone you won't 
>have by then. Yes it might look like a real telephone, and fit in the 
>wall socket, but it will be converted to VOIP in the "Exchange" and you 
>will have to dial the full number.

My telephone is exactly the same one I've had since before my landline
was removed when my connection was changed to fibre. It plugs into the
router instead of a wall socket, but in use it works exactly as it did
before. I didn't have to change any settings on the phone and I don't
have to dial anything different. When people call me they call the
same number as before, and nobody has commented on any percieved
difference. If anything, the sound is clearer.

And there's a neat feature of my system (Zen with Fritzbox) that I
don't think they all have. I can make or answer calls on the house
phone using an app on my mobile. This is sometimes handy anyway, and
my mobile has much better speakerphone performance and a battery that
doesn't conk out after an hour or so like most cordless handsets that
use a couple of AAA cells.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249673

On 19/07/2026 08:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 00:24:27 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> The January 2027 deadline is not about the demise of FTTC it is about
>> the demise of the PSTN. So if you still have a real telephone you won't
>> have by then. Yes it might look like a real telephone, and fit in the
>> wall socket, but it will be converted to VOIP in the "Exchange" and you
>> will have to dial the full number.
> 
> My telephone is exactly the same one I've had since before my landline
> was removed when my connection was changed to fibre. It plugs into the
> router instead of a wall socket, but in use it works exactly as it did
> before. I didn't have to change any settings on the phone and I don't
> have to dial anything different. When people call me they call the
> same number as before, and nobody has commented on any percieved
> difference. If anything, the sound is clearer.
> 
> And there's a neat feature of my system (Zen with Fritzbox) that I
> don't think they all have. I can make or answer calls on the house
> phone using an app on my mobile. This is sometimes handy anyway, and
> my mobile has much better speakerphone performance and a battery that
> doesn't conk out after an hour or so like most cordless handsets that
> use a couple of AAA cells.

I'm on digital voice with Zen too. As you say, it works fine with the 
original (DECT) phone. The only strange thing I've found is that when a 
call in is terminated, there are three or four engaged tones heard 
before the phone disconnects. Oddly, they appear at the end of an 
answerphone message left on the DECT too!

-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249676

On 18/07/2026 04:29, Java Jive wrote:
> *  The wind comes barrelling across the loch and straight into the 
> house, anything not robust and weighted down will be destroyed &/or 
> blown away; I usually use my wheelbarrow upturned to protect my mower 
> from rain where it's parked partially sheltered by a big tall hedge and 
> a corner of the house, but one day even that was blown off and now I 
> weigh it down with lumps of rock!
> 
> Given the wind problem, I'm wondering how to mount a satellite dish 
> securely.  There is no possibility of mounting one on most of the walls, 
> because they were made of bits of random stone and rocks, which mostly 
> are impossibly hard to drill, held together weakly by a crumbly 
> substance that once may or may not have had any real mortar in it.

Is there a stout tree nearby on which to mount the dish? My dish is 
fixed at ground level to the trunk of an ash tree at the bottom of my 
garden, far enough away to be line-of-sight to the satellite over the 
house roof.
-- 
Dave W

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249677

On 2026-07-25 20:32, Dave W wrote:
> On 18/07/2026 04:29, Java Jive wrote:
>> *  The wind comes barrelling across the loch and straight into the 
>> house, anything not robust and weighted down will be destroyed &/or 
>> blown away; I usually use my wheelbarrow upturned to protect my mower 
>> from rain where it's parked partially sheltered by a big tall hedge 
>> and a corner of the house, but one day even that was blown off and now 
>> I weigh it down with lumps of rock!
>>
>> Given the wind problem, I'm wondering how to mount a satellite dish 
>> securely.  There is no possibility of mounting one on most of the 
>> walls, because they were made of bits of random stone and rocks, which 
>> mostly are impossibly hard to drill, held together weakly by a crumbly 
>> substance that once may or may not have had any real mortar in it.
> 
> Is there a stout tree nearby on which to mount the dish? My dish is 
> fixed at ground level to the trunk of an ash tree at the bottom of my 
> garden, far enough away to be line-of-sight to the satellite over the 
> house roof.

Thanks for the thought, but I don't think there's anything very suitable 
close enough.  The land behind the house was clear-felled not long 
before I moved in, and has been naturally regenerating ever since, so 
all the trees on it are thin and bendy.  The trees on my land are more 
bushy than anything else, so are thin and bendy in a different way.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249678

On 25/07/2026 22:25, Java Jive wrote:

> 
> Thanks for the thought, but I don't think there's anything very suitable 
> close enough.  The land behind the house was clear-felled not long 
> before I moved in, and has been naturally regenerating ever since, so 
> all the trees on it are thin and bendy.  The trees on my land are more 
> bushy than anything else, so are thin and bendy in a different way.
> 

A bit of scaffolding pole concreted into the ground?  The dish doesn't 
have to mounted high - it just needs line of sight and not obscured by 
undergrowth etc.

-- 
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249679

On 26/07/2026 07:15, alan_m wrote:
> On 25/07/2026 22:25, Java Jive wrote:
> 
>>
>> Thanks for the thought, but I don't think there's anything very 
>> suitable close enough.  The land behind the house was clear-felled not 
>> long before I moved in, and has been naturally regenerating ever 
>> since, so all the trees on it are thin and bendy.  The trees on my 
>> land are more bushy than anything else, so are thin and bendy in a 
>> different way.
>>
> 
> A bit of scaffolding pole concreted into the ground?  The dish doesn't 
> have to mounted high - it just needs line of sight and not obscured by 
> undergrowth etc.
> 


tripod mount frame thingys used to be available for this exact purpose - 
so no need to mess around with concrete  - apart from the bags of 
concrete required to stop it blowing away in a gale

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249680

On 2026-07-26 08:39, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
>
> On 26/07/2026 07:15, alan_m wrote:
>>
>> On 25/07/2026 22:25, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the thought, but I don't think there's anything very 
>>> suitable close enough.  The land behind the house was clear-felled 
>>> not long before I moved in, and has been naturally regenerating ever 
>>> since, so all the trees on it are thin and bendy.  The trees on my 
>>> land are more bushy than anything else, so are thin and bendy in a 
>>> different way.
>>
>> A bit of scaffolding pole concreted into the ground?  The dish doesn't 
>> have to mounted high - it just needs line of sight and not obscured by 
>> undergrowth etc.
> 
> tripod mount frame thingys used to be available for this exact purpose - 
> so no need to mess around with concrete  - apart from the bags of 
> concrete required to stop it blowing away in a gale

Tx to both.  Tripod, I don't think so, too easily disturbed. 
Scaffolding pole, not quite solid enough to hold the dish steady in a gale.

As far as I've thought about it, I think something like an old telegraph 
pole but about half the height, with a footing about a metre long buried 
in concrete, is probably about the best that can be done.  At the 
moment, there are only ever sheep in the field it would look over, but 
there are plenty of cattle around here as well, so the dish would have 
to be high enough to have an unobstructed view over the heads of any 
cattle in the field next door, yet solid enough that it wouldn't move 
too much in a gale.  I would probably put it about a metre or so inside 
the boundary fence, because if it was part of the boundary fence 
livestock would scratch themselves on the pole, their doing this is a 
large factor in the posts in the local boundary fences breaking and 
getting pushed over.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249681

On 26/07/2026 15:49, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2026-07-26 08:39, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
>>
>> On 26/07/2026 07:15, alan_m wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/07/2026 22:25, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the thought, but I don't think there's anything very 
>>>> suitable close enough.  The land behind the house was clear-felled 
>>>> not long before I moved in, and has been naturally regenerating ever 
>>>> since, so all the trees on it are thin and bendy.  The trees on my 
>>>> land are more bushy than anything else, so are thin and bendy in a 
>>>> different way.
>>>
>>> A bit of scaffolding pole concreted into the ground?  The dish 
>>> doesn't have to mounted high - it just needs line of sight and not 
>>> obscured by undergrowth etc.
>>
>> tripod mount frame thingys used to be available for this exact purpose 
>> - so no need to mess around with concrete  - apart from the bags of 
>> concrete required to stop it blowing away in a gale
> 
> Tx to both.  Tripod, I don't think so, too easily disturbed. Scaffolding 
> pole, not quite solid enough to hold the dish steady in a gale.

It's better or equivalent to the same size poles used to mount a dish 
above the eves of a house to obtain the signal over the roof.

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/reference/dish-screened-by-roof.pdf

However if in scotishland you need a dish larger than 65cm (Zone 2 
sky/freesat dish = 80cm x 60Cm elliptical)

> 
> As far as I've thought about it, I think something like an old telegraph 
> pole but about half the height, with a footing about a metre long buried 
> in concrete, is probably about the best that can be done.  At the 
> moment, there are only ever sheep in the field it would look over, but 
> there are plenty of cattle around here as well, so the dish would have 
> to be high enough to have an unobstructed view over the heads of any 
> cattle in the field next door, yet solid enough that it wouldn't move 
> too much in a gale. 

You may be surprised how low the dish can be installed to clear an 
obstacle in the path.

Go to https://www.dishpointer.com/
Select "28.2E astra 2F/2G for the satellite
Enter your location (by postcode etc.)

A map will be displayed with a green line showing the direction your 
dish needs to be pointed.
You can move the end of the green line to your exact installation location.
In the dish setup data you can see the elevation for the signal 
(Scotland approx 18 to 20 degrees) so the dish only needs to be 6m away 
get clear a 2m high cow assuming the dish was mounted at ground level.


-- 
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249683

On 2026-07-26 17:44, alan_m wrote:
> 
> You may be surprised how low the dish can be installed to clear an 
> obstacle in the path.
> 
> Go to https://www.dishpointer.com/
> Select "28.2E astra 2F/2G for the satellite
> Enter your location (by postcode etc.)
> 
> A map will be displayed with a green line showing the direction your 
> dish needs to be pointed.
> You can move the end of the green line to your exact installation location.
> In the dish setup data you can see the elevation for the signal 
> (Scotland approx 18 to 20 degrees) so the dish only needs to be 6m away 
> get clear a 2m high cow assuming the dish was mounted at ground level.

Yes, I know all about that, I used to have as good or better dish and 
aerial pointing pages on my site, but after Google broke them for the 
third time by some pointless update or other, while their documentation 
pages remained a decade out of date, and they wanted my CC details in 
case my site went over a free usage limit, I gave them the middle 
finger.  At the time I hoped to fix the pages using other free 
alternatives, but have just been way too busy with other, to me, more 
important things.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249577

On Wed 01/07/2026 12:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> 
> After the problems with my my Freesat-4k-Recordable (which seem to be 
> heat related rather than HDD related) I have been poking around for 
> alternatives to receive/record satellite TV which might be more amenable 
> to saving those recordings and playing them on other devices.
> 
> Names I have found are Octagon SF8008 and Zgemma H7S.
> 
> Anybody here use anything like this (or similar) who can give (or point 
> me to) a review?
> 
> I would need it to be reasonably plug and play although I do have a 
> Linux box so have some familiarity with Linux, long, long, way from 
> being any sort of expert though.
> 


Have a look at Manhattan products. I have one of their bog-standard HD 
receivers and it works a treat. Plenty of on-line info or toddle along 
to Currys.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.digital-tv

csiph-web