Hi Bibbler:
Obviously your post was directed at me so I shall respond.
Under other circumstances I would tend to agree with you that we should be fair and give the benefit of the doubt.
However, when someone talks of "FTA", "DiSEqC" and "110/119/129/91/82" all in one breath I tend to think they know exactly what they are doing and needn't be reminded of the true meaning of FTA.
If someone said "Hi Everybody - I just picked up this FTA receiver on ebay. What can I do with it? What channels will I be able to see?" that would be a different story.
kat


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote



why I have no idea. I understand your position. I have a neighbor who's system is dead now. It was a hack system that was installed by a DN tech! How were these people to know it was not a legit system from DN? So they go out to the dish and write down everything they can about what they have and post to a legit forum. HACKERS! which in fact they were. It is a fine line. Perhaps if FTA was to just give up the FTA tag and let the hackers have it. After all there is no reference to FTA in OTA. Perhaps move to DVB MPEG2 tagging or LFTA (legal FTA). No idea the solution but I think the issue here is protecting Sadoun's interests.


