Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

You should remove your apology.

It is Not needed. Nor do the Karen's deserve one.

It could be of course....but id bet he has a dodgy box . But no odds.

This quote from the Journal article is just completely off the cluelessness scale:

"The sophisticated hack involves the systems being targeted usually by rogue firmware images installed during manufacturing or distribution. A firmware image is an apparent legitimate picture that contains the offending data that infects the device."

A "legitimate picture"? FFS! That's like a definition created by an AI running on a fridge magnet.

It isn't a hack either. These devices were shipped in a compromised state. There seems to be a lot of conflation of events and buzzword bingo going on in that article. The reporting on this and related compromised dodgybox devices was posted upthread.

"

One of the Off the Ball crew fingered himself a few years ago too.

Started talking about some 3pm Sat kickoff & named a pundit that you only get on Peacock, Robbie Earle it might have been. Then there was a pile on & he tried to nervous laugh walk it back.

It was bad. It is not the worst that I've seen in the non-specialist Irish media. The article reads like it used some of the coverage of that botnet from reliable sources like Krebs On Security. The problem with people in the non-specialist media covering Technology is that they typically have no background in the field. If someone had said that a firmware image was for ROM, they'd probably think that the Romulans were involved. A supply chain compromise is a very serious problem.

It looks like the Journal was jumping on the bandwagon. It also said that the dodgyboxes were illegal. That's incorrect. The problem for the broadcasters is that the devices are not illegal and the legislation was drafted in a time when most people were on dial-up Internet and when dodgboxes were not a major problem. The main problem then was from pirate smartcards.

There is a psychological aspect to why people subscribe to broadcasters and also why they buy devices like Firesticks. It has to do with reliability and certainty. They know what they are getting and they also are certain that they will get it. This also applies to the dodgybox networks in that people will generally favour the more reliable services. The problem for the broadcasters is that the switching cost for the dodgybox networks is part of the excpectation of dodgybox users. It is also low enough that it is cheap enough to switch services if a dodgybox network is taken out. That economic problem is one that the broadcasters cannot solve because the dodgybox subscription is a fraction of the cost of a full Sky subscription (for example). The broadcasters and rights holders are lobbying hard to get legislation that would make it easier to prosecute dodgybox users.

Things must be bad if you are hoping for a new Weckler article. The fixture posts are fine and low frequency. What do you think of the Journal article or have you previously read better information here on the thread?

They can't seem to work out that the IPTV providers are cheaper because than Sky because they are stealing the content and don't have the costs of producing the content.

Do you genuinely think that people are that naive or stupid?

Of course people know that's why it's cheaper

It still doesn't change the fact that Sky's prices are extorniate if you want to be able to watch the Premier League and even if you do pay for Sky, you are still unable to view every match.

There is a lot of "Billy big balls" about the posting here.

"Hey look at me, I got everything in 4k+ on unlimited screens for just a pound of sausages and my supplier is in Tajikistan so no EU law will get them"

Or

"$ky and Murdock can f off, I can even get the 3pm games that they refuse to show for the price of a month of $ky"

Completely oblivious to the fact that Sky are no longer owned by Murdock and Sky don't decide what can and cannot be shown.

Whatever about dodgy boxes I wish someone would hurry up and come out with dodgy broadband

Funny how people see 300 a year for tv as extortionate but will happily pay north of 50pm for BB without a thought, I'm paying 60 a month for speeds I stopped counting at 50mbs but apparently it's 10X that…do I need that much? probably not