Talk Quesada forum

At the end of the day, if you want something good then you have to pay for it, go cheap and suffer the consequences, like complain, and you're sorted for a short time, then back to square one, and start again, not worth the hassle, go with a reputable company, pay that little bit more, and enjoy. "Simples"

But, how are they respectable when it would appear that they steal content from, say, SKY and resell it.

OK, some may have servers in uncontrolled environments (Russia?) and are untouchable but surely, users are aiding that theft and boosting the economy of increasingly unpredictable regime, sorry, ‘legitimately’ elected Government

So a bit of cheap Sky, is boosting Putin's power. Come on - be reasonable, not exactly related and as Sky makes billions and there are no starving footballers they hardly in a position to complain. I suspect a little hosting on a server in any country, makes no change to boost the economy - very small beans indeed. Try arms, drugs & alcohol.

In fact the issue is Sky's own greed, as people simply cannot afford and will always seek to find the a cheaper or the cheapest alternative. Human nature.

At the end of it all, Sky is rich, footballers are rich, movie stars are rich, so the only people being mugged off are the public - who clearly believe this is the case, otherwise, alternatives - free or otherwise wouldn't exist.

There is also a secondary point, that some who are prepared to pay Sky, can't as in the wrong country or satellite signal not available - so for those who MUST WATCH THEIR FOOTBALL - makes life quite difficult, as even if you wish to pay for an official set up, it is not always an option internationally.

I'm not condoning this one way or the other - I'm saying much of this is on Sky and the greed of the licensing authorities - football association/premier league - making everything either subscription/pay per view or unaffordable to the majority. So if someone can box around what's legal in one country but not another ?? It's not like all the big 'legal' companies don't pull the same trick. Nike wouldn't employ slave labour in the USA, but it's ok in Vietnam. Companies can operate differently legally in different countries - as rules internationally are not the same and that is usually how these things are navigated, not just in this, but many industries.

Paul - TV Techie wrote:So a bit of cheap Sky, is boosting Putin's power. Come on - be reasonable, not exactly related and as Sky makes billions and there are no starving footballers they hardly in a position to complain. I suspect a little hosting on a server in any country, makes no change to boost the economy - very small beans indeed. Try arms, drugs & alcohol.

In fact the issue is Sky's own greed, as people simply cannot afford and will always seek to find the a cheaper or the cheapest alternative. Human nature.

At the end of it all, Sky is rich, footballers are rich, movie stars are rich, so the only people being mugged off are the public - who clearly believe this is the case, otherwise, alternatives - free or otherwise wouldn't exist.

There is also a secondary point, that some who are prepared to pay Sky, can't as in the wrong country or satellite signal not available - so for those who MUST WATCH THEIR FOOTBALL - makes life quite difficult, as even if you wish to pay for an official set up, it is not always an option internationally.

I'm not condoning this one way or the other - I'm saying much of this is on Sky and the greed of the licensing authorities - football association/premier league - making everything either subscription/pay per view or unaffordable to the majority. So if someone can box around what's legal in one country but not another ?? It's not like all the big 'legal' companies don't pull the same trick. Nike wouldn't employ slave labour in the USA, but it's ok in Vietnam. Companies can operate differently legally in different countries - as rules internationally are not the same and that is usually how these things are navigated, not just in this, but many industries.

I once asked an IPTV Provider owner what he thought of the legalities and he came up with this analogy :

"Sky wáter company has the rights to supply village A with expensive wáter and has invested fortunes in the infrastructure but charges a high Price to its consumers,unfortunately there is a leak in a pipe which runs pass village B, the leak is deemed to expensive to fix so free wáter flows into village B who have no wáter ,and is collected by the MAG wáter company who have an infrastructure but as the wáter is free, charge their consumers a small cuota to cover the infrastucture costs."

I see, all the IPTV suppliers and resellers are acting like modern day Robin Hoods, stealing from the nasty rich and giving to the poor. Not really giving though but making a nice little earner out of it.

Apparently, because SKY has lots of money they are fair game but the man in that five bed villa has lots too, probably exploits his customers too, is it legal to steal from him?

So has anyone experience of the boxes i mentioned? Lol.

Not sure what boxes you mentioned - at one point in time i've tested most boxes - MAG 250,254,256, 322, Blademedia, Medialink, Opus, Apple TV - lots of variations of Android boxes, now TV boxes / roku / Amazon Firesticks. EDIT & testing the new MAG 324 W2

Conclusion - hardware, for a decent service using something like a MAG 322 (324 seems ok but new, needs further testing) - as that is the simplest, most stable to use. Android boxes use a myriad of applications rather than one native piece of software, unreliable and not simplest to use.

Once you have the hardware - next up is finding a decent provider, as whatever box you have, is only as good as the service received on it - which unfortunately can also vary with the provider. Most will give you a test if you have your own box.


Paul
http://www.televisiontechnology.eu
+34 865774055