Plusnet to offer a TV service?

https://twitter.com/plusnet/status/340098007968149504

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1076...

We're in the early stages of TV trials with staff. We are excited about the opportunities this will extend to our customers in the near future but as yet, have no fixed timings for a public launch.
Chris Parr

In reply to a post by Oldjim:

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1076...

We're in the early stages of TV trials with staff. We are excited about the opportunities this will extend to our customers in the near future but as yet, have no fixed timings for a public launch.
Chris Parr

Cool. Wonder if they'll use the YouView platform, which is likely bearing in mind BT Retail use it and they're part of the same group.

I hope they will bring in a good package such as BT Sport 1 & 2 along with ESPN, Eurosport 1 & 2, Sky Sports 1,2, 3 and 4.

Sport, sport, sport, egg, bacon, sausage and sport or lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle p�t�, brandy and a fried egg on top of sport.

Staff trials are currently ongoing

Is it using multicast?

Can't give you guys any more info yet. Will do once we can.

But Why - just concentrate on giving a good connection, fastest speeds, excellent customer service. There are many "TV" service providers do we need another one? No

If you want to provide a value add then provide a Wifi hotspot service or give us a subscription to one of the existing services.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Sport, sport, sport, egg, bacon, sausage and sport or lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle p�t�, brandy and a fried egg on top of sport.

Well said! One of the two new religions. Part of the dumbing down of the populace by the elite and rich, making them richer.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Sport, sport, sport, egg, bacon, sausage and sport or lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle p�t�, brandy and a fried egg on top of sport.

Well said! One of the two new religions. Part of the dumbing down of the populace by the elite and rich, making them richer.

If you looked at the Xbox one reveal it was nothing but TV, sports and call of duty.

Everybody wants to get into TV that's where they think they can make big money on.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Sport, sport, sport, egg, bacon, sausage and sport or lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle p�t�, brandy and a fried egg on top of sport.

Well said! One of the two new religions. Part of the dumbing down of the populace by the elite and rich, making them richer.

I agree, There is a raft of existing TV based offerings why not, like others have said, just concentrate on improving upon an already excellent (IMHO) Internet platform like faster speeds and Wi-Fi Hotspots.

There is a surplus of TV type offerings from other suppliers. Don't just do something because everyone else is doing the same thing: Sky, Talk Talk, BT Vision, Virgin and now it seems PN.TV

I despise most of all what TV stands for. Its like a direct line for advertisers into your living room. 24/7 bombarding us with multiple messages. more ads than quality programming. Making a generation of zombies.

PlusNet just Keep It Simple Stupid !!!

Another ISP doing TV seems pointless ,after all there are only so many channels available, Take Freeveiw ,You have around 8-10 channels that actually occasionaly broadcast programes worthwile watching the rest are showing repeats sometimes only 24hrs later , or shopping/gambling channels a complete waist of time, and your life spent watching it if your daft enough

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 01-Jun-13 00:06:51)

plusnet trying to become mass market instead of been niche? what next, drop static ips?

plusnet trying to become mass market instead of been niche?

I agree, I that sounds about right..

what next, drop static ips?

Now that's a thought? I hope not !!

They will only make big money from those that are silly enough to throw it at them. There is no need to while you can watch everything for free online. Whether the big Box Office fight last week, Premier football, History or documentary channels, or Sky F1, it's all free to watch online. One site will show more than all the subscription services put together.

I'm not sure when "legal" and "moral" became "silly".

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I'm not sure when "legal" and "moral" became "silly".

Indeed. I suggest he edits the post to read "it's all free to watch online, providing you are happy to break the law and regularly walk into a supermarket to steal your weekly shopping, etc."

As usual, forum know-it-Alls know it all (Not). There is no law broken watching streams online. The only people breaking the law are the ones streaming their Sky box output or whatever. Absolutely nothing to do with stealing from a supermarket, which even if it was the case would be a welcome change from the supermarket stealing from the customer.

So, in the analogy, while you don't exactly condone theft, you don't mind handling stolen goods?

People generally only steal if there is a market for their heist. And in this case, there is only something worth stealing if sufficient people *are* paying for it properly.

I added the word "moral" in my statement for a reason. There may not be a law against it (and I'm not saying that's true), but you're free-loading off the back of someone else's sweat and graft.

Post deleted by MrSaffron

Disagreeing with others or having heated debates is OK, but calling people insulting names is not a reasonable activity that we encourage around here.

The person breaking the law by streaming their Sky content has paid for it, so not stolen goods in my book. I assume you would not feel comfortable watching Sky in someone else's house that they had paid for.
It's the same old 'loss of revenue' waffle you usually hear from do-gooders. Just like the person that downloads a hundred albums in one hit that he could never afford to buy, the person watching a stream he would never buy either on financial grounds or principle, is no loss of sale at all.

In reply to a post by professor973:

The person breaking the law by streaming their Sky content has paid for it, so not stolen goods in my book.

You're reading the wrong book then.

They've paid a licence fee to be allowed to watch the feed under pretty limiting circumstances - including things like a single room (unless they pay the extra multi-room fee), and not being a pub, club, hotel, oil rig etc. Like most things governed by copyright, you only ever purchase a limited licence, to a restricted set of rights.

The licence fee doesn't give them the right to copy it (notwithstanding UK law grey on making a recording for own viewing purposes later, and the even greyer situation that Sky provide a box to store those grey recordings on), but certainly doesn't allow them to redistribute it.

The act of redistribution makes it illegal (or, at least, a broken contract), and in the analogy, it is the redistributed stream that becomes the stolen goods. In the same analogy, someone receiving the stream is handling stolen goods.

I assume you would not feel comfortable watching Sky in someone else's house that they had paid for.

Perfectly comfortable, in a legal sense - the licence fee they have paid covers those circumstances, making it fully legal.

It's the same old 'loss of revenue' waffle

Which you appear to counter by the same old 'isn't a loss of revenue' waffle.

Irrespective of what side of the fence you sit - whether you believe it to be justified behaviour or not - redistribution is illegal. The side of the fence you personally sit on will determine whether you feel justified in watching such a feed or not - but if you are going to tell others to watch the feed, isn't it right to let them know that there *is* a fence, and let them choose which side they want to be on?

"Stolen goods", "illegal" and "breaking the law" are strong words! Theft is a criminal offence. However, unless there are aggravating factors - e.g. redistribution for illicit profit - the (re-)streaming of copyrighted content is no more than a tort or a civil wrong. In other words, it's not the right thing to do, but it's not hangable either! That said, hanging never did me any harm

cheers, a

Edited by deleted (Wed 05-Jun-13 02:50:40)

But "breaking the law" can be either criminal or civil law. So, it is breaking a law even if it is the civil courts that deal with the act rather than the criminal courts.

But my point still is, those doing the watching are not breaking the law. The risks those that upload take is their problem.

I don't know the laws well enough I'm afraid.

I think the main reason they go after those doing the sharing is that they tend to be sharing with a lot of people (or a lot of content). Therefore the return on investment for taking action against them is better.

Trying to take someone to court for viewing an item of content is not going to net enough of an income to cover the costs.

I don't know where to find the correct legal cases to show whether consuming illegal content is against civil law - if you have links then would be interested in reading them. Is our civil law in the UK based on case law like the states? In which case you would potentially need a case to go through the courts to set a precedent on legality?

Everywhere I have looked, the answer is the same. It is not like downloading copied content.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111112...

I agree a court of law ultimately is needed to determine this but based on current written law downloading (but not sharing) such content is legal, there is also the matter that the fact someone has downloaded such contact is no proof they have actually used it.

Plus I don't think a normal user is expected to know what's copyrighted and what isn't. If they were then in theory they could be 'done' for looking at a website where the owner had put up a copyrighted image or if they looked at a video on YouTube that was copyrighted.

It's just not practical to expect your average Joe to research the copyright status of everything they look at online, hence why as far as I know downloading is not against the law.

In reply to a post by ian72:

I think the main reason they go after those doing the sharing is that they tend to be sharing with a lot of people (or a lot of content). Therefore the return on investment for taking action against them is better.

Well not only that, but also it's not possible for the content holders to know who is watching what unless the viewers are sharing the content with peers.

In reply to a post by DRW:

But Why - just concentrate on giving a good connection, fastest speeds, excellent customer service. There are many "TV" service providers do we need another one? No

If you want to provide a value add then provide a Wifi hotspot service or give us a subscription to one of the existing services.

I live in a village without cable (so no Virgin TV), I prefer not to pay Sky or BT prices or put up with TalkTalk service and I like PlusNet. So I would welcome TV from PlusNet.

Edited by deleted (Sun 08-Jun-14 21:18:28)

In reply to a post by paul_rautenbach:

I live in a village without cable (so no Virgin TV), I prefer not to pay Sky or BT prices or put up with TalkTalk service and I like PlusNet. So I would welcome TV from PlusNet.

Understandable. But I wouldn't be happy for PN to provide something "free" that actually cost them money and translated into price rises.

In reply to a post by DRW:

But Why - just concentrate on giving a good connection, fastest speeds, excellent customer service. There are many "TV" service providers do we need another one? No

If you want to provide a value add then provide a Wifi hotspot service or give us a subscription to one of the existing services.

They can't give fastest speeds, they're reliant on the same infrastructure as every other operator using BT Wholesale and in turn the Openreach last generation access network, so have to find other ways to differentiate.

Broadband uptake is high already, now need a revenue to increase sales. Adding TV is seen as a revenue earner, especially with film addons etc.
Looking to move to TV with BT when Eurosport becomes available ( need infinity at the moment).
Pay £27 with sky to get as part of package £14 with BT.

Infinity broadband is only available from BT Retail. So if you aren't on it, you don't need it.