Nagravision 3 Upc Waterford

ghynes

Just to let people know Upc have switched over to Nagravision 3 in Waterford goodbye dodgy boxes

decies

can you expand more on this ,are we all getting new boxes then us legal upc users???

ghynes

Upc have been replacing legitimate decoders that were not compatable with Nagra 3 over the last few months.

barnicles

I wonder how many dodgybox threads are going to appear soon if this is true?

Ranicand

barnicles wrote: »

I wonder how many dodgybox threads are going to appear soon if this is true?

What about Dublin I can't wait should by funny .:D

com7

how do you know they re switched over to nagra 3 ?:D

rubadub

com7 wrote: »

how do you know they re switched over to nagra 3 ?:D

The usual "reliable source" no doubt, a FOAF of a guy who knows a bloke in the pub who's ma cleans the jacks in UPC.

From what I read the newer boxes run nagra 2, so if this is true would they have to go replacing cards all over again, on the boxes they just installed?

GerardKeating

ghynes wrote: »

Just to let people know Upc have switched over to Nagravision 3 in Waterford goodbye dodgy boxes

they cannot switch over until they send out new smart cards, all the existing cars are Nagravision 1.

Have they sent cards out, did you get one ?

rubadub

GerardKeating wrote: »

they cannot switch over until they send out new smart cards, all the existing cars are Nagravision 1.

But they may be able to broadcast 2 streams. At the moment they are meant to be broadcasting 1 & 2 in dublin on the same feed, some newer boxes are running 2, and I presume the ones they changed out in tallaght are running 2.

That is why I wondered if the current card could handle 2 & 3 since it would mean having to change all those cards all over again.

Its been heard that UPC will be implementing

Nagra 2

Card Version:

rom110 revA05


Which is one version of nagra 2 which has not been cracked yet.

pa990

cisk wrote: »

yet.

being the word

icdg

Guys, if your going to speculate, at least providing some basis for the speculation might be a good idea.

It is well known that UPC are engaged in an anti-piracy drive in NTL areas, but understandably, they haven't publically announced what they are doing beyond swapping NTL branded STBs for UPC branded ones.

This thread's hanging by a, er, thread at the moment. Give us a reason to close it and it will be done. One more "I heard off a mate" post might be good enough reason...

200motels

icdg wrote: »

Guys, if your going to speculate, at least providing some basis for the speculation might be a good idea.

It is well known that UPC are engaged in an anti-piracy drive in NTL areas, but understandably, they haven't publically announced what they are doing beyond swapping NTL branded STBs for UPC branded ones.

This thread's hanging by a, er, thread at the moment. Give us a reason to close it and it will be done. One more "I heard off a mate" post might be good enough reason...

I spoke to an engeneer from NTL and he said they have the new cards but they have to change the old boxes first before the can send them out, which he said takes time.

pa990

lock it up...


if they change encryption, they change encryption.. so what.. it has no effect on (legit) subscribers.

d8player

I actually think its does affect us legit users. I would delighted to see the holier than thou attitude of the illegit guys get a hammering when they end up with set top bricks. I would prefer to see them fined but locking them out would be a good enough second. Like the illegal mp3 downloads a few test prosecutions would scare off most users. For a lot of people its the fear of getting caught that stops them breaking the law rather than not doing it because its the wrong thing to do. Its similar to the way people speed when they know there's no speed cameras.

d8player

d8player wrote: »

I actually think its does affect us legit users. I would delighted to see the holier than thou attitude of the illegit guys get a hammering when they end up with set top bricks. I would prefer to see them fined but locking them out would be a good enough second. Like the illegal mp3 downloads a few test prosecutions would scare off most users. For a lot of people its the fear of getting caught that stops them breaking the law rather than not doing it because its the wrong thing to do. Its similar to the way people speed when they know there's no speed cameras.

Its people like you that keep services overpriced and underequiped, why would they bother keeping prices down and services top notch when fanboys like you will defend them.

Deedsie

cisk wrote: »

Its people like you that keep services overpriced and underequiped, why would they bother keeping prices down and services top notch when fanboys like you will defend them.

Well said cisk

GerardKeating

cisk wrote: »

Its people like you that keep services overpriced and underequiped, why would they bother keeping prices down and services top notch when fanboys like you will defend them.

So that is the kind of person you are, attacking someone for not being a thief...

DingDong

Its people like d8player who are paying for others theft of service, why wouldn't you be happy that something your paying for while other are stealing the service is finally coming to an end. The bottom line is if no one paid for the service there wouldn't be any.

d8player

cisk wrote: »

Its people like you that keep services overpriced and underequiped, why would they bother keeping prices down and services top notch when fanboys like you will defend them.

cisk, I have not defended UPC, I did not even mention them. My point was simply that people would be less likely to sue them if someone was actually punished for breaking the law. Not sure where you get the fanboy rubbish you're spouting.

Deedsie

Are we allowed to argue that UPC for the service they provide charge too much? I live in an MMDS area and its likely ill be stuck with the same crappy service for the next ten years. Yet i pay the same price as people in Cable areas who have more channels and a DVR.
I would get one of those dodgy pieces of equipment but i know thats the kind of thing UPC would invest money and time into outlawing.

Perhaps if UPC had a fairer price structure people wouldnt be encouraged to steal there product.

My two cents on the issue.

d8player

Deedsie wrote: »

Are we allowed to argue that UPC for the service they provide charge too much? I live in an MMDS area and its likely ill be stuck with the same crappy service for the next ten years. Yet i pay the same price as people in Cable areas who have more channels and a DVR.
I would get one of those dodgy pieces of equipment but i know thats the kind of thing UPC would invest money and time into outlawing.

Perhaps if UPC had a fairer price structure people wouldnt be encouraged to steal there product.

My two cents on the issue.

I agree that UPC could be a lot better than they are and from the sounds of it MMDS are even worse off. This thread had nothing to do with UPC's level of service, it was about nagravision and its effect on using illegal equipment.

rubadub

pa990 wrote: »

it has no effect on (legit) subscribers.

It could well have. It will be interesting to see what happens.

On the one hand if all their premium subscribers who cancelled then sign up again then they will have increased profits, and could lower price and/or improve service for people. It will also give them a better service as most of the "maintenance" work is really them trying to trip up and knock out dodgy boxes, at one stage it was a daily occurance that I would come home to a non-working (legit) box, and have to reboot a few times or wait 5-10mins before it came on.

On the other hand I expect many box users will be pissed off and change to sky out of spite.

Sky should win either way, they get money via UPC from return subscribers, and gain new "spiteful" customers. win win for sky, more profits, could drop price further, poaching even more customers, esp. the spiteful box users.

Mossy Monk

Deedsie wrote: »

I live in an MMDS area and its likely ill be stuck with the same crappy service for the next ten years.

Why do you pay for it then? You have the option to cancel.

rubadub

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Why do you pay for it then? You have the option to cancel.

I imagine he has sent in his 20 registered letters and spent days on the phone cancelling, so with some luck he will be out of the contract in 10 years

icdg

Time up for this thread I think - its gone from unsubstantiated rumour, to people hurling insults at each, to just being simply off-topic.

Thread closed.