Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sky finally closing in on Cam Sharing on Satellite (or so it appears)

124

Comments

  • #92
    thenightrider
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭thenightrider


    What about enurobird will they be cracking down on that also ?


  • #93
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,955 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    thenightrider wrote: »
    What about enurobird will they be cracking down on that also ?

    id say all other providers will be watching this and planning, only a matter of time i guess


  • #94
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,680 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Quote from Irishfeen
    From what I understand they have started to employ "ICAM" encryption. This is a 2 way encryption system opposed to the current "NDS Encryption".

    Sky Italia introduced this 2 way system and from what we understand has proved 100% effective in stopping cam-sharing.

    I think I have an explanation to what is going on. The illegal providers probably all have a HD SKY subscriptions. All channels whether SD or HD on this package are capable of being blocked by SKY using their new ICAM encryption.

    That means that if an illegal provider had a SD subscription rather than a HD one, which would be rare, there is still no way for SKY to circumvent illegal card sharing. That means anyone who uses a service who does not offer HD channels they will never loose any channels.

    So, until Sky get every one of their customers to upgrade to the newer HD boxes there is no way for them to fully block SD content.


  • #95
    tsue921i8wljb3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    Does it bother anyone who has used card sharing that they may be funding criminal enterprises? It may be some lone guy in his apartment reselling a Sky connection or it maybe highly organised criminal gangs engaged in who knows what illegality. At the end of the day do you know who you're paying?


  • #96
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,955 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Sophia Sour Sawhorse wrote: »
    Does it bother anyone who has used card sharing that they may be funding criminal enterprises? It may be some lone guy in his apartment reselling a Sky connection or it maybe highly organised criminal gangs engaged in who knows what illegality. At the end of the day do you know who you're paying?

    i suspect most dont care at all just as long as they can get their sub cheaper than sky


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Hunky Monster wrote: »
    I don't fully understand how Sky can block channels by decryption on these dodgyboxes? My understanding was that the dodgyboxes themselves don't decrypt the signal but that trickle of broadband it uses does - as in, it's decrypted on someone elses sky box and then the decrypted code is sent via internet to the dodgybox?

    Correct me if I'm wrong.
    With cccam-sharing the real sky card is being shared by numberous boxes ... basically being duplicated... to clear a channel a signal is required between the box and the sky card every 5-7 seconds.

    An internet connection is used to transfer the card info between various different boxes at the same time ... this worked for years and years quiet successfully.

    Now sky have somehow introduced a 2 stage encryption where the box and the card have to be paired and need eachother to clear. I am not sure of the ins and outs of this but I presume they have reduced down the time required to clear the channels and now the signal must travel both ways box > card > box before the channels clear.


  • #98
    wandatowell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,435 ✭✭✭wandatowell


    Sophia Sour Sawhorse wrote: »
    Does it bother anyone who has used card sharing that they may be funding criminal enterprises? It may be some lone guy in his apartment reselling a Sky connection or it maybe highly organised criminal gangs engaged in who knows what illegality. At the end of the day do you know who you're paying?

    That username though :D:D:D:D:D


  • #99
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,908 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Sophia Sour Sawhorse wrote: »
    Does it bother anyone who has used card sharing that they may be funding criminal enterprises? It may be some lone guy in his apartment reselling a Sky connection or it maybe highly organised criminal gangs engaged in who knows what illegality. At the end of the day do you know who you're paying?

    As I said before, this is Sky's network at the end of the day. Sky are not stupid, they know it was been pirated, it's up to them to get it sorted, which they have pretty much now done.

    I am sure if it was anything seriously sinister them I would imagine Sky would have been under pressure from the various governments to get it sorted.


  • #100
    stesaurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭stesaurus


    AllForIt wrote: »
    Quote from Irishfeen



    I think I have an explanation to what is going on. The illegal providers probably all have a HD SKY subscriptions. All channels whether SD or HD on this package are capable of being blocked by SKY using their new ICAM encryption.

    That means that if an illegal provider had a SD subscription rather than a HD one, which would be rare, there is still no way for SKY to circumvent illegal card sharing. That means anyone who uses a service who does not offer HD channels they will never loose any channels.

    So, until Sky get every one of their customers to upgrade to the newer HD boxes there is no way for them to fully block SD content.

    Ummmm no, HD has been missing from CS for a while now.
    Channels on these new transponders have the new icam encryption and the current cams cannot decode it. It doesn't matter if they have HD on their package or not.


  • #101
    mikeybrennan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    Of people viewing sky illegally .What percentage would be cam sharing and percentage streaming?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,955 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    mikeybrennan wrote: »
    Of people viewing sky illegally .What percentage would be cam sharing and percentage streaming?

    wouldnt have a clue of percentages but id say more cam sharing, but that ll dramatically change soon. shocked cam sharing has gone on this long. had ruled it out years ago


  • #103
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,908 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    mikeybrennan wrote: »
    Of people viewing sky illegally .What percentage would be cam sharing and percentage streaming?

    I'd hazard a guess between the two maybe in and around 25/30% with CCAM gone you'd be down to around 5/10% via IPTV.


  • #104
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    mikeybrennan wrote: »
    Of people viewing sky illegally .What percentage would be cam sharing and percentage streaming?
    Nobody knows the answer to this, not even sky themselves.

    They have lost control over the viewing of their channels, that's why they are working so hard to shut down cam sharing with better encryption techniques.


  • #105
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,680 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Quote from stesaurus
    Ummmm no, HD has been missing from CS for a while now.
    Channels on these new transponders have the new icam encryption and the current cams cannot decode it. It doesn't matter if they have HD on their package or not.

    I don't think your understood my post at all.


  • #106
    tsue921i8wljb3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    TallGlass wrote: »
    As I said before, this is Sky's network at the end of the day. Sky are not stupid, they know it was been pirated, it's up to them to get it sorted, which they have pretty much now done.

    I am sure if it was anything seriously sinister them I would imagine Sky would have been under pressure from the various governments to get it sorted.

    I think it is naive to believe that where money is to be made illegally that organised crime will not move in.


  • #107
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Sophia Sour Sawhorse wrote: »
    I think it is naive to believe that where money is to be made illegally that organised crime will not move in.
    To be fair this is nothing to do with the right and wrongs of cam sharing ... it is illegal, everyone knows it like downloading torrents.


  • #108
    mikeybrennan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    Can they stop IPTV any way?

    Can the output from1 box be distributed a million ways over IPTV?

    Or am i mistaken in my thinking


  • #109
    tsue921i8wljb3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    irishfeen wrote: »
    To be fair this is nothing to do with the right and wrongs of cam sharing ... it is illegal, everyone knows it like downloading torrents.

    In fairness torrenting is not even similar. It is peer to peer so you are really only hurting the rights holder. With CS you are actively paying someone unknown for a service.


  • #110
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,955 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    mikeybrennan wrote: »
    Can they stop IPTV any way?

    Can the output from1 box be distributed a million ways over IPTV?

    Or am i mistaken in my thinking

    of course 'they' can stop it, and they most certainly will try and will succeed to some degree, possibly entirely, who knows


  • #111
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,908 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    mikeybrennan wrote: »
    Can they stop IPTV any way?

    Can the output from1 box be distributed a million ways over IPTV?

    Or am i mistaken in my thinking

    That's like asking can you stop P2P or HTML, it's just a protocol like any other protocol your computer follows. In that sense, you can't, can you stop the content been shared via the protocol, yes you can.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    mikeybrennan wrote: »
    Can they stop IPTV any way?

    Can the output from1 box be distributed a million ways over IPTV?

    Or am i mistaken in my thinking
    Course it can but it all depends where the stream is taken from. On screen anti-piracy methods are already being used on sky. If sky see the numbers it matches to a box/account and it can be switched off immediately.


  • #113
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Sophia Sour Sawhorse wrote: »
    In fairness torrenting is not even similar. It is peer to peer so you are really only hurting the rights holder. With CS you are actively paying someone unknown for a service.
    .. it's still illegal though!


  • #114
    stesaurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭stesaurus


    AllForIt wrote: »
    Quote from stesaurus



    I don't think your understood my post at all.

    I think i did. You're suggesting someone with a bog standard SD package linked to an old style Thomson non HD box would still be able to provide all these missing channels.
    They can't.


  • #115
    tsue921i8wljb3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    irishfeen wrote: »
    .. it's still illegal though!

    Only if you're torrenting illegal content! The protocol itself is perfectly legal.


  • #116
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Sophia Sour Sawhorse wrote: »
    Only if you're torrenting illegal content! The protocol itself is perfectly legal.
    Well yes but your splitting hairs, its a tightrope in terms of legality.


  • #117
    tsue921i8wljb3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    I'd have my doubts about IPTV services ability to widely replace CS. CS was using a system that was designed for broadcast. IPTV is at the mercy of the wider internet. If ISPs start seeing vast increases in data across their networks questions will be asked, data will be sniffed and services terminated.


  • #118
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,680 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Quote from Stesaurus
    I think i did. You're suggesting someone with a big standard SD package linked to an old style Thomson non HD box would still be able to provide all these missing channels.
    They can't.

    So if that were true why didn't sky introduce this new system when they became aware of illegal card sharing a decade ago?


  • #119
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,908 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Sophia Sour Sawhorse wrote: »
    I'd have my doubts about IPTV services ability to widely replace CS. CS was using a system that was designed for broadcast. IPTV is at the mercy of the wider internet. If ISPs start seeing vast increases in data across their networks questions will be asked, data will be sniffed and services terminated.

    Legal minefield, your talking about literally looking at customers data and I really don't think ISP want to open that can of worms, just yet!

    Again, ISP could ID the protocol traffic, they wouldn't know what's in it unless they start opening packets of data to check.


  • #120
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    AllForIt wrote: »
    Quote from Stesaurus



    So if that were true why didn't sky introduce this new system when they became aware of illegal card sharing a decade ago?
    I would assume because it might not have existed, this is cutting edge broadcasting encryption we are talking about..


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    tsue921i8wljb3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    TallGlass wrote: »
    Legal minefield, your talking about literally looking at customers data and I really don't think ISP want to open that can of worms, just yet!

    Again, ISP could ID the protocol traffic, they wouldn't know what's in it unless they start opening packets of data to check.

    Again you're naive to think this is not happening already.

    Also I'm not really talking about end users here. How feasible is it to have illegal broadcast quality IPTV services on a large scale? Where is it served from? Who pays the transit costs? This will be noticed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement