Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

I said essentially free. Broadband is €35p/m adding tv and Netflix it was €50p/m. Netflix costs €11 for the basic package so in essence the tv is €4 a month, not free but hardly a massive expense.

We mainly use the firestick on the main tv but handy to have tv on a second screen in the house.

never gonna happen, rock on folks with the dodginess

Sky could reduce to €5 per month and it still wouldn't be on par. It's an outdated model.

You believe that the HSE are helping to keep SKY afloat based on walking by some houses.

It's a mental take.

yep, an absolute beauty.

If it is an outdated model, what is the new model ?

And be realistic, no every game for €10 a month stuff.

Behind a paywall where most people won't see it. Terrible irony that. :)

Okay I did read it again.

It's still insane.

Not sure if there is any financial gain in it for Weckler, but I dont see why he talks about the boxes so often?

Perhaps its just cheap content for him, saved him having to do other research? After all, he is a technology columnist, so he has to write about something every day or week or however he has to submit articles. Its no skin off his nose if people are using dodgy boxes as he calls them. Its not costing him anything. But it would appear he is being encouraged to write constant articles about them, either by his boss or by sky, or maybe both.

It is the whole Phil Space/Polly Filla thing in journalism. Publications and broadcaster need to fill space and dead air. Sky and the broadcasters consider that they are losing money to dodgybox operations and viewing habits have changed.

Sky used to have a gatekeeper position (effectively a monopoly) on Pay TV. That changed about 20 years ago with the rollout of broadband. There is now more competition from services like Netflix and Amazon. Above all, viewing habits have changed from synchonous viewing (watching a programme when it is broadcast) to asynchronous viewing (watching a programme when the person wants to watch it). That had started with the advent of the VCR, gathered pace with DVRs and almost overwhelmed broadcasters with the rise of the streaming services.

NOW TV was an attempt to adjust to this new reality and also to package programming in a way that would appeal to people who don't want a subscription where they do not an cannot watch all programmes.

The other part of this is that dodgyboxes provide an evergreen "story" for journalists. After a while, journalists who know less about Technology begin to think of journalists like Weckler as being expert on the subject. (I don't consider him an expert on piracy.) Thus he gets invited on to radio and TV shows to talk about the terrible threat from dodgyboxes.

The broadcaster angle is that they are big advertisers and feeding journalists with press releases helps their position. It may even convince some people not to use dodgyboxes. If it does, it is a win for the Sky and others. If it does not, it still keeps the subject in the media.

What is generally missing from the scare stories about dodgyboxes and streaming is the scale of the issue in comparison to the numbers of subscribers of the affected broadcasters. Some broadcasters measure their subscriber base in millions. The post above shows a few hundred dodgybox customers having their service knocked out.

The sources of the "figures" about visits tp pirate websites seem to be unreliable at best considering the difficulties of monitoring such visits and determining if they convert into an action such as subscribing or watching. Big numbers generate big headlines. And where the broadcasters are concerned, it is a propaganda war to convince people not to use dodgyboxes.

Where are the statistics (hard data) to back up Weckler's claims?

400K out of a survey of 3K? The article is behind a paywall. Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain those figures (and why Netflix/Prime/Disney figures remained quite stable) as you explained those of MUSO?

I'm guessing the answer to the LOI concern is.

"F**k ye, ye should sell it cheaper"

One reason for the change in subscription figures for legacy broadcasters is that there is a post-COVID pandemic change in viewing habits and a shift away from the traditional synchornous viewing. This possibility doesn't fit with the doom-laden dodgybox propaganda.

One topic I see little discussion of is the risks of malware infection, due to 'Dodgy Boxes'. If it is mentioned, it is dismissed as scaremongering. (There is even an incorrect belief that it doesn't matter if the device is 'only plugged into the TV'.) It could turn out to be an expensive misconception.

Try searching for 'malware in modified Android TV devices' to get an idea of the scale of the problem. Then search for 'Banking Trojans in modified Android TV devices' to see the advances in the threat level.