Card is not included in this 'pack' which I think is a little misleading. They'll send you a card as part of the £20 connection fee. However if you go to their website they ask if you have a card and the connection fee appears zero. However they want a phone number associated with the card that suggests by having a card that you are or were a subscriber. Earlier this year online subscribers avoided the fee if they had a new card but that changed mid-year. With the changes this month dont know if you would avoid the £20 therefore doubt its worth buying one off Fleabay for a few quid. As for Sky Sports - right now yes it will work according to others on this forum although not officially, and if Sky lose their appeal against Ofcom decision you'll be OK.
Let us know how you get on.
Cheers
Thats good! I've just tried a (spare) new card online and confirm the connection fee stayed zero right up to the final screen (but I didnt activate it because I dont want 2 subscriptions!).:)
Earlier this year ESPN viewers who activated TUTV cards online avoided the £20 connection fee but those phoned didnt!
Cheers
Note that although CAMs work with Sky Sports at the moment, they will stop working later this year. The only equipment officially supported for Sky Sports on TUTV is boxes with embedded encryption.
Even if it works now, it will not work for Sky Sports indefinitely. CAMs will only work for a limited time, according to the people at TUTV with whom I have spoken
Yes but the TUTV staff are only quoting the position until last Thursday see http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/12/bskyb-ofcom
so wont use of CAMs into next year depend on Ofcom - if they reject Sky's appeal then CAMs should be OK?
@Winston yes Aston rev1.2 will work fine in any TV with a CI slot
Interesting thank you. I dont understand the alleged 'security concerns' there has been no hacking of this (Nagravision 3 Merlin) encryption to my knowledge. If Ofcom dismiss this as an objection then it would suggest it is a technical cover by Sky to limit the selling of their channel via TUTV. As your excellent article describes, use of a CAM would be popular.
I'm with Baggers on this - go for a CAM and if pairing happens then buy an appropriate box or cancel. TUTV told me the same card will be used either way.
We shall see!
Security concerns regarding CAMs aren't to do with any type of encryption, but rather to do with the fact that in the CI spec, everything happens in the module itself and you get a descrambled stream out of the CAM.
CI+ adds an encrypted and authorised channel between the CAM and the rest of the system, removing that rather glaring weakness.
It's not so much illicit viewing, but content protection, that's the issue, I think.
The CI model works best with live TV viewing.
Wth a PVR it's problematic, to say the least. If the card isn't needed for anything else, then a PVR will usually save a programme to its hard disk in the clear. That makes playback simple, but if you have, say, a Topfield PVR, you could transfer content off via the USB connection. You can also watch it even after you've cancelled your subscription.
If you're watching one pay channel and recording another, or in certain other situations (buggy firmware), the CI system can't save the recording in the clear, and so saves the encrypted version, using the CAM to decrypt on playback instead. That works fine, until you have an old recording, and want to play it back, only to find that the keys on the card have rotated, and it can't be played (another issue Toppy users used to run into with the old TUTV linear service).
So, CI in a PVR doesn't really please content owners, because of the possibility of a clear copy of their content existing on a hard disk in someone's home, and doesn't really please punters, because there are situations in which you can find that you can't watch a show you recorded earlier.
CI+ can certainly resolve the issues of content owners; it sets up a secure link back into the PVR, so you can have files written in a different, but still protected, format on the hard drive. That can then be used to enforce copying controls, which isn't possible with standard CI, and I suppose it can also record information about entitlement to view.
Whether it resolves the issues for users, I'm not sure. I'd have to research more to find out.
Nigel, while I understand and can appreciate that argument if we were talking about movies or premium US drama, however for sport surely nearly all the value is in the live broadcast, that's what Sky pays so much money for. Copies of sporting events will have little value because of highlight shows, people knowing the result etc so I don't really understand Sky's concern about CI for Sky Sports.
You may be right; but of course content providers are going to want to do as much as possible to protect it. And, they may well have a view on the future, and whether or not there will be other content on the platform..
As things stand, the only system that's acceptable to Sky is embedded encryption; there's no guarantee even CI+ will be allowed - but it would perhaps be an acceptable compromise between people like TUTV who want their service as widely available as possible, and Sky who want to lock down their content as much as possible.
And, of course, pressure need not come from Sky alone; no one who isn't party to meetings can say with certainty what goes on, but the people from whom Sky has bought rights will always expect them to do the best they can to protect them, too.
Comments
Let us know how you get on.
Cheers
I'm looking to subscribe to Sky Sports 1+2 and ESPN, but I resent having to fork out another £20 just to have them turn on a card I already have.
Anyone, with any ideas how to not pay this?
Jambo862
If you have a card select existing customer, yes have viewcard and yes got equipment - no £20 charge.
30 Min activation - just about as much QVC as i can cope with!!
Earlier this year ESPN viewers who activated TUTV cards online avoided the £20 connection fee but those phoned didnt!
Cheers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/12/bskyb-ofcom
so wont use of CAMs into next year depend on Ofcom - if they reject Sky's appeal then CAMs should be OK?
@Winston yes Aston rev1.2 will work fine in any TV with a CI slot
HTH
It's not a ruling about CAMs. It's a ruling about bundling of services - an entirely different thing.
If you want to know the situation, try reading this:
http://gonedigital.net/2010/08/17/sky-sports-on-freeview-%E2%80%93-can-you-use-a-cam/
I'm with Baggers on this - go for a CAM and if pairing happens then buy an appropriate box or cancel. TUTV told me the same card will be used either way.
We shall see!
CI+ adds an encrypted and authorised channel between the CAM and the rest of the system, removing that rather glaring weakness.
The CI model works best with live TV viewing.
Wth a PVR it's problematic, to say the least. If the card isn't needed for anything else, then a PVR will usually save a programme to its hard disk in the clear. That makes playback simple, but if you have, say, a Topfield PVR, you could transfer content off via the USB connection. You can also watch it even after you've cancelled your subscription.
If you're watching one pay channel and recording another, or in certain other situations (buggy firmware), the CI system can't save the recording in the clear, and so saves the encrypted version, using the CAM to decrypt on playback instead. That works fine, until you have an old recording, and want to play it back, only to find that the keys on the card have rotated, and it can't be played (another issue Toppy users used to run into with the old TUTV linear service).
So, CI in a PVR doesn't really please content owners, because of the possibility of a clear copy of their content existing on a hard disk in someone's home, and doesn't really please punters, because there are situations in which you can find that you can't watch a show you recorded earlier.
CI+ can certainly resolve the issues of content owners; it sets up a secure link back into the PVR, so you can have files written in a different, but still protected, format on the hard drive. That can then be used to enforce copying controls, which isn't possible with standard CI, and I suppose it can also record information about entitlement to view.
Whether it resolves the issues for users, I'm not sure. I'd have to research more to find out.
As things stand, the only system that's acceptable to Sky is embedded encryption; there's no guarantee even CI+ will be allowed - but it would perhaps be an acceptable compromise between people like TUTV who want their service as widely available as possible, and Sky who want to lock down their content as much as possible.
And, of course, pressure need not come from Sky alone; no one who isn't party to meetings can say with certainty what goes on, but the people from whom Sky has bought rights will always expect them to do the best they can to protect them, too.