Foxtel/Austar welcomes pirates to subscribe [Archive]

View Full Version : Foxtel/Austar welcomes pirates to subscribe

Pages : [1] 2

NewsMan

02-12-2003, 10:19 PM

In an ad this evening featuring the CEOs of both Austar and Foxtel,
they specifically invited pirates to subscribe to obtain a valid smartcard.
Perhaps, as an added incentive, the service for those with their own
STBs could have been offered a reduced rate.

--

More news:
http://www.auspaytv.com.au/forums/ipdl.php

***

On cable TV they have a weather channel - 24 hours of weather. We had
something like that where I grew up. We called it a window.
-- Dan Spencer

Miro

02-12-2003, 11:29 PM

Miro

02-12-2003, 11:29 PM

"NewsMan" <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:bqhrr2$1l5c$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> In an ad this evening featuring the CEOs of both Austar and Foxtel,
> they specifically invited pirates to subscribe to obtain a valid
smartcard.
> Perhaps, as an added incentive, the service for those with their own
> STBs could have been offered a reduced rate.
>
> --

I cant find the story but I find it ironic in the reporting just minutes
earlier !

"Dealers in pirated equipment are committing a crime and this
action by FOXTEL will put them out of business. Would-be purchasers
of pirated equipment should not waste their money because they are
losing their pirated signals permanently".

Some Journo's are jerks !

CyBorg 0091

03-12-2003, 12:29 PM

Miro wrote:
> "NewsMan" <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:bqhrr2$1l5c$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
>>In an ad this evening featuring the CEOs of both Austar and Foxtel,
>>they specifically invited pirates to subscribe to obtain a valid
>
> smartcard.
>
>>Perhaps, as an added incentive, the service for those with their own
>>STBs could have been offered a reduced rate.
>>
>>--
>
>
> I cant find the story but I find it ironic in the reporting just minutes
> earlier !
>
> "Dealers in pirated equipment are committing a crime and this
> action by FOXTEL will put them out of business. Would-be purchasers
> of pirated equipment should not waste their money because they are
> losing their pirated signals permanently".
>
> Some Journo's are jerks !
>
>

C1
12688 H
s.r 29473

C1T20

Danny Rohr

03-12-2003, 01:49 PM

NewsMan <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:bqhrr2$1l5c$1@otis.netspace.net.au...

> In an ad this evening featuring the CEOs of both Austar and Foxtel,
> they specifically invited pirates to subscribe to obtain a valid
smartcard.
> Perhaps, as an added incentive, the service for those with their own
> STBs could have been offered a reduced rate.

Thats not going to happen, too much support. Genuine Foxtel boxes prettyu
much take care of themselves. Generic boxes require channel scanning,
organising, etc etc.

Danny.

bort

03-12-2003, 02:40 PM

"Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in message
news:bqjifj$23m0dl$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> NewsMan <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:bqhrr2$1l5c$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> > In an ad this evening featuring the CEOs of both Austar and Foxtel,
> > they specifically invited pirates to subscribe to obtain a valid
> smartcard.
> > Perhaps, as an added incentive, the service for those with their own
> > STBs could have been offered a reduced rate.
>
> Thats not going to happen, too much support. Genuine Foxtel boxes prettyu
> much take care of themselves. Generic boxes require channel scanning,
> organising, etc etc.

If you were getting a discounted rate by owning your own box, why should
Foxtel provide support for it? Your choice, your problem.

Miro

03-12-2003, 03:19 PM

"bort" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3fcd57f3$0$1746$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> "Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in message
> news:bqjifj$23m0dl$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > NewsMan <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:bqhrr2$1l5c$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> >
> > > In an ad this evening featuring the CEOs of both Austar and Foxtel,
> > > they specifically invited pirates to subscribe to obtain a valid
> > smartcard.
> > > Perhaps, as an added incentive, the service for those with their own
> > > STBs could have been offered a reduced rate.
> >
> > Thats not going to happen, too much support. Genuine Foxtel boxes
prettyu
> > much take care of themselves. Generic boxes require channel scanning,
> > organising, etc etc.
>
> If you were getting a discounted rate by owning your own box, why should
> Foxtel provide support for it? Your choice, your problem.

I seem to recall that 1-900 takes care of it - user pays.

NewsMan

03-12-2003, 06:26 PM

Any support required for non-provider boxes could most likely
attract a fee. Telstra currently charges fees if a telephone problem
is with equipment not supplied by them... so what's the difference?

"Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in message
news:bqjifj$23m0dl$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Thats not going to happen, too much support. Genuine Foxtel boxes prettyu
> much take care of themselves. Generic boxes require channel scanning,
> organising, etc etc.
>
> Danny.
>
>
>

Wayne349

03-12-2003, 07:36 PM

If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and otherwise with
their 'upgrades'
that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform that
did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything would be
sweet.

"NewsMan" <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:bqk6gq$2mkr$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> Any support required for non-provider boxes could most likely
> attract a fee. Telstra currently charges fees if a telephone problem
> is with equipment not supplied by them... so what's the difference?
>
> "Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in message
> news:bqjifj$23m0dl$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Thats not going to happen, too much support. Genuine Foxtel boxes
prettyu
> > much take care of themselves. Generic boxes require channel scanning,
> > organising, etc etc.
> >
> > Danny.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

bort

03-12-2003, 07:36 PM

"Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fcdac36$0$1727$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and otherwise
with
> their 'upgrades'
> that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform that
> did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything would
be
> sweet.

So, should Foxtel pander to thieves?

Miro

03-12-2003, 07:46 PM

Wayne349

03-12-2003, 07:46 PM

"bort" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3fcdad0f$0$1752$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> "Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcdac36$0$1727$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and otherwise
> with
> > their 'upgrades'
> > that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform
that
> > did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything would
> be
> > sweet.
>
> So, should Foxtel pander to thieves?

As i said above, the Foxtel upgrades last week effected legit users on other
platforms using the same satellite that are'nt
even paytv subscribers,
how does Foxtel answer to that ?
There have been several pervious posts in response to this already...
Why remove the available bouquets for all satellite users if your only one
of a number a satellite service providers ?
>
>
>
>

Wayne349

03-12-2003, 07:46 PM

" Miro" <miro01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fcdaf0f$0$14055$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcdac36$0$1727$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and otherwise
> with
> > their 'upgrades'
> > that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform
that
> > did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything would
> be
> > sweet.
>
> What makes you think that Foxtel has control over non-Foxtel UEC boxes ?
>
> I dont recall any such problem.

Further down this NG under firmware upgrade there is postings claiming that
legitimate users of the Optus Aurora platform using UEC (non foxtel boxes)
had an unwanted and unentitled upgrade and had lost their ability to select
bouquets
which was causing concern for the owners who actually own this equipment.

>
>

Miro

03-12-2003, 08:26 PM

"Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fcdb071$0$1745$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
>
> " Miro" <miro01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcdaf0f$0$14055$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> >
> > "Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3fcdac36$0$1727$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > > If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and
otherwise
> > with
> > > their 'upgrades'
> > > that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform
> that
> > > did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything
would
> > be
> > > sweet.
> >
> > What makes you think that Foxtel has control over non-Foxtel UEC boxes ?
> >
> > I dont recall any such problem.
>
> Further down this NG under firmware upgrade there is postings claiming
that
> legitimate users of the Optus Aurora platform using UEC (non foxtel boxes)
> had an unwanted and unentitled upgrade and had lost their ability to
select
> bouquets
> which was causing concern for the owners who actually own this equipment.

Seems to me that Foxtel has right to exclude people from its service. They
threatened to hire code warriors and develop a similar firmware kill for
Humax boxes but those are menu controlled in updates, generally not
automatic.

I downloaded the PDF from the manufacturer of the EEPROM chip inside the UEC
box and a quick phone call to Fujitsu or Motorola or someone ... confirmed
that no EEPROM writes are possible if the SET_HIGH function is disabled by
lifting a pin. In turn this meant that no person can address the EEPROM if
the pre-write mode could not be reached inside the chip.

The groovy Kwyjibo.

03-12-2003, 08:36 PM

And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths,
and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and
fruit bats, and " Miro" <miro01@hotmail.com> spake, saying

>
> "Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcdb071$0$1745$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
>>
>> " Miro" <miro01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3fcdaf0f$0$14055$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>> >
>> > "Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3fcdac36$0$1727$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
>> > > If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and
> otherwise
>> > with
>> > > their 'upgrades'
>> > > that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora
>> > > platform
>> that
>> > > did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades,
>> > > everything
> would
>> > be
>> > > sweet.
>> >
>> > What makes you think that Foxtel has control over non-Foxtel UEC
>> > boxes ?
>> >
>> > I dont recall any such problem.
>>
>> Further down this NG under firmware upgrade there is postings
>> claiming
> that
>> legitimate users of the Optus Aurora platform using UEC (non foxtel
>> boxes) had an unwanted and unentitled upgrade and had lost their
>> ability to
> select
>> bouquets
>> which was causing concern for the owners who actually own this
>> equipment.
>
> Seems to me that Foxtel has right to exclude people from its service.

Correct. They don't have a right to **** around with other peoples
equipment though. They are not the only broadcasters using C1.

> They threatened to hire code warriors and develop a similar firmware
> kill for Humax boxes

Cite?

> but those are menu controlled in updates,
> generally not automatic.
>

Sounds like bullshit to me. I could imagine a nice little class action
taking place if they even attempted it.

Could you imagine the uproar if Microsoft built some code into Windows
that caused your hard drive to be formatted if you attempted to install
Linux on the same machine?

Same thing, and both would be stupid to try it.

> I downloaded the PDF from the manufacturer of the EEPROM chip inside
> the UEC box and a quick phone call to Fujitsu or Motorola or someone
> ... confirmed that no EEPROM writes are possible if the SET_HIGH
> function is disabled by lifting a pin. In turn this meant that no
> person can address the EEPROM if the pre-write mode could not be
> reached inside the chip.
>

Irrelevant to the fact that Foxtel has possibly altered peoples private
equipment without their consent.

--

Kwyj.

Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter

03-12-2003, 08:46 PM

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:26:19 +0800, Wayne349 wrote:

> that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform that
> did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything would be
> sweet.

But why are these people watching the Foxtel transponders anyway - and no
TVSN is not an 'excuse'

Wayne349

03-12-2003, 09:06 PM

"Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <gloryglory@manutd.com> wrote in message
news:zhygmsa7q2a7.retg7x57x2bd$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:26:19 +0800, Wayne349 wrote:
>
> > that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform
that
> > did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything would
be
> > sweet.
>
> But why are these people watching the Foxtel transponders anyway - and no
> TVSN is not an 'excuse'

That statement avoids the argument, whether it's TVSN or not is irrelevent -
it's the principle of it, these users don't care whats happening with the
impending
antipiracy/digital upgrades, the fact is they have now experienced
unauthorized upgrades/modifications
to their own ( not rented ) UEC units that they did'nt require, want or need
and are now asking some questions.

bort

04-12-2003, 12:05 AM

"Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fcdaf65$0$1722$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
>
> "bort" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcdad0f$0$1752$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > "Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3fcdac36$0$1727$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > > If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and
otherwise
> > with
> > > their 'upgrades'
> > > that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform
> that
> > > did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything
would
> > be
> > > sweet.
> >
> > So, should Foxtel pander to thieves?
>
>
>
> As i said above, the Foxtel upgrades last week effected legit users on
other
> platforms using the same satellite that are'nt
> even paytv subscribers,
> how does Foxtel answer to that ?

How do you answer my question?

> There have been several pervious posts in response to this already...
> Why remove the available bouquets for all satellite users if your only one
> of a number a satellite service providers ?

Maybe they made a mistake?

Danny Rohr

04-12-2003, 09:36 AM

Wayne349 <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fcdac36$0$1727$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...

> If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and otherwise
with
> their 'upgrades'
> that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform that
> did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything would
be
> sweet.

They havn't firmware upgarded anythign but their own boxes.

Geeze, paranoid!

Danny.

Wayne349

04-12-2003, 05:46 PM

"bort" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3fcdecee$0$1756$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> "Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcdaf65$0$1722$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> >
> > "bort" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:3fcdad0f$0$1752$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > > "Wayne349" <apollo345@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3fcdac36$0$1727$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > > > If Foxtel had'nt ****ed everyones boxes last week - legal and
> otherwise
> > > with
> > > > their 'upgrades'
> > > > that even effected legitimate users of the the Optus Aurora platform
> > that
> > > > did'nt want, need or are even entitled to any upgrades, everything
> would
> > > be
> > > > sweet.
> > >
> > > So, should Foxtel pander to thieves?
> >
> >
> >
> > As i said above, the Foxtel upgrades last week effected legit users on
> other
> > platforms using the same satellite that are'nt
> > even paytv subscribers,
> > how does Foxtel answer to that ?
>
> How do you answer my question?
>
> > There have been several pervious posts in response to this already...
> > Why remove the available bouquets for all satellite users if your only
one
> > of a number a satellite service providers ?
>
> Maybe they made a mistake?

Then they should fix it then should'nt they....

>
>
>