VAST and third party recievers

[Strada916]

We know information supplied indicates cards and box are married in the factory.

Could this be a case of the government and UEC telling us porkies, and that the marrying part only occurs upon activation and not within the factory.

10 points to Xplorer

Freeview security has nothing on F@xt3l or Auzt@r ironic

[LeroyPatrol]

Leroy, the v5.7 card in the 1200s did it just work or was there a mod required?

thanks.,

It was the UltraPlus supplier that has a card running and that was using a version of MCAS from the 7/12/10. There would be no reason for it to not work on the 1200 being another Fortis receiver using similar firmware. Anyway he's back mid next week so I'll find out more then.

Leroy

[gordon_s1942]

My understanding is that Austar use a non-standard version of Irdeto encryption, which prevents most third-party boxes from working with those cards.

That may be correct for 3rd party STB's but wouldnt that allow you to exchange cards between 'like' STB's?

[Fernbay]

Anyone heard any word yet on any gamma cards for VAST?

[bambbbam]

That may be correct for 3rd party STB's but wouldnt that allow you to exchange cards between 'like' STB's?

No.. best to think of it this way: 'The Decoder is married to the Card', not vice-versa.

[efab]

Anyone heard any word yet on any gamma cards for VAST?

nope but nice thought

[Tassie Devil]

I have sent the following complaint to the ACCC:

We are given to understand that Draconian restrictions are being placed on using the new VAST digital TV service. At the moment it appears that only three firms (with two already announced) will be allowed to produce items to receive VAST TV broadcasts on satellite and that any card issued for the VAST service will be married to a receiver from one of the three nominated firms. The card will NOT work in any other digital satellite receiver.
This is anti competitive and a card should be usable in ANY suitable satellite receiver. Many of us already have quite sophisticated and suitable receivers and wish to be able to access the VAST service using them. It is unreasonable to expect consumers to have to purchase extra satellite receivers when they already have units which would be suitable if the card encryption was more open.
So, in the interests of fair competition which allows free consumer choice, I request the ACCC approach the Government to alter the present approach to the VAST service. We are talking about FTA TV services here, not Pay TV, and such services should be as free to VAST users as they are to most terrestrial TV users. Anyone with an aerial in most cities can receive digital FTA using a wide choice of items. To continue with the present approach to VAST is adding further unfair penalty on those who live in remote or difficult reception (blackspot) areas.
I have written to the Federal Minister for Communication on this but have had no reply.

Here is where you can complain:

John

[earlsdon]

We know information supplied indicates cards and box are married in the factory.

Could this be a case of the government and UEC telling us porkies, and that the marrying part only occurs upon activation and not within the factory.

I doubt the card and box are married before activation, if they were when we apply for activation they would only require the card or box number, not both.

[Tassie Devil]

Dear Sir

As you are aware analog TV services are to cease next year and the Government is introducing VAST satellite services for those of us in remote and blackspot areas.

People living in most populated areas will be able to receive terrestrial digital TV using an Arial and a set top box or recorder - and there is a wide choice of items available at a range of prices. This will not be the situation for others who cannot receive FTA terrestial broadcasts.

These people will be required to purchase a satellite dish and a receiver for VAST. The problem is that special cards will be needed to receive VAST and these cards will only work in the one receiver - the card is encrypted to only work in it. The problem with this is twofold -
(i) there will only be three firms licenced to produce and sell VAST receivers - most anti competitive
(ii) a number of us already possess suitable sophisticated satellite receiver equipment BUT will be unable to use it for VAST due to the restrictive trading practices being applied.

I regard the above situation as most unsatisfactory as it imposes restrictive conditions on those living in outback and black spot situations that most Australians do not have to tolerate.

The subsidy the Government proposes to assist people needing VAST is another issue. However the restrictions being imposed on VAST cards does mean that the subsidy cost to Government, as well as others, will be higher than necessary.

So I ask you to please give this issue some attention and publicity. There seems no logical reason that the VAST cards need to be so heavily encrypted. They should be freely available to anyone wanting one and be freely usable in a number (not just 3) of brands. Competition among these brands would inevitably bring down costs both to the consumer and to the Government subsidising others as well as offering a wider choice of receivers to use - the sort of choice other FTA users already enjoy. Note we are talking about FTA services here, not Pay TV.

I have already contacted the Federal Communications Minister about this matter but have not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement, let alone a response.

Thanks for your attention

Anyone can send a similar communication to Turnbull at Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au

John

[gordon_s1942]

You could add that New Zealand is also going over to Sattelite for their FTA services (NOTE: FREE TO AIR ) and there is absolutely NO restrictions on the STB's nor is a Smart Card used so why is Australia going down this Draconian over Governing path?
In fact one company is now selling suitable STB's for under $NZ100 where we are up for a minimum of $AU250.
Common sense dictates that very few people who have good terrestial Digital reception on a $50 antenna are going to expend a minimum of $200 on a dish plus labour and a single STB, but one STB is needed for every TV they have to receive the same programming.
Even the Governments own costing has shown this may be as much as $700 for those affected by virture of the subsidy that may apply to suitable applicants.
And its totaly ludicrous to think that a VAST STB wont be used where ever the owner wants it irrespesctive of where its registered to be as People today are more Sattelite savy than even 5 years ago as demonstrated by the availabilty of 'Traveller' authorisations.

[pc9]

I have sent the following complaint to the ACCC:

We are given to understand that Draconian restrictions are being placed on using the new VAST digital TV service. At the moment it appears that only three firms (with two already announced) will be allowed to produce items to receive VAST TV broadcasts on satellite and that any card issued for the VAST service will be married to a receiver from one of the three nominated firms. The card will NOT work in any other digital satellite receiver.
This is anti competitive and a card should be usable in ANY suitable satellite receiver. Many of us already have quite sophisticated and suitable receivers and wish to be able to access the VAST service using them. It is unreasonable to expect consumers to have to purchase extra satellite receivers when they already have units which would be suitable if the card encryption was more open.
So, in the interests of fair competition which allows free consumer choice, I request the ACCC approach the Government to alter the present approach to the VAST service. We are talking about FTA TV services here, not Pay TV, and such services should be as free to VAST users as they are to most terrestrial TV users. Anyone with an aerial in most cities can receive digital FTA using a wide choice of items. To continue with the present approach to VAST is adding further unfair penalty on those who live in remote or difficult reception (blackspot) areas.
I have written to the Federal Minister for Communication on this but have had no reply.

Here is where you can complain:

John

Good on you Tassie Devil - will get around to doing same.

[sdrambo]

You could add that New Zealand is also going over to Sattelite for their FTA services (NOTE: FREE TO AIR ) and there is absolutely NO restrictions on the STB's nor is a Smart Card used so why is Australia going down this Draconian over Governing path?
In fact one company is now selling suitable STB's for under where we are up for a minimum of .
Common sense dictates that very few people who have good terrestial Digital reception on a $50 antenna are going to expend a minimum of $200 on a dish plus labour and a single STB, but one STB is needed for every TV they have to receive the same programming.
Even the Governments own costing has shown this may be as much as $700 for those affected by virture of the subsidy that may apply to suitable applicants.
And its totaly ludicrous to think that a VAST STB wont be used where ever the owner wants it irrespesctive of where its registered to be as People today are more Sattelite savy than even 5 years ago as demonstrated by the availabilty of 'Traveller' authorisations.

It is a bit simpler in NZ though as there are no time zones, only three(I think) channels and the programming is the same everywhere. Used to be all government owned as well from memory

[Smacca]

Anyone can send a similar communication to Turnbull at Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au

John

Gladly. I've sent many more to other random pollies, too.

G'day Malcolm,

I'm writing this email to address an issue rural Australians are having with the new VAST service - the platform delivering metropolitan standard digital television to rural homes and businesses.

As I'm sure you know, this service encrypts all the channels it delivers. The reason they do this is pretty clear - to protect sports rights holders, advertisers and of course the networks themselves. I know if I was Channel Nine, I certainly wouldn't want my viewers flicking over to Imparja to get live Rugby League.

The issue here isn't the need to lock the channels, but the need to restrict the type of equipment used to receive the channels. Why must viewers only have a choice of one or two set-top boxes to watch TV? This is highly anti-competitive and has rendered all existing equipment out there as utterly useless.

In a perfect scenario, a rural television viewer would have a choice. The current set-top box available now for the average Joe who just wants to watch TV, and a card-only option for people who have heavily invested in satellite equipment already, who also want to watch TV, record it, burn it, just like anyone can do in terrestrial TV areas.

This level of equipment restriction is worse when you look at how badly the set-top box has been manufactured. The box freezes at random intervals. It rejects remote inputs at times. It also has a habit of turning off and on again. Now, if someone in a regional or metropolitan city had this issue, they'd have the freedom to dump that shoddy equipment and shop around for something better. Heck, even a current Optus Aurora (the VAST predecessor) viewer has that freedom of choice.

If your party was re-elected, would you get rid of this 'television dictatorship?'

Best regards,

[Smacca]

You could add that New Zealand is also going over to Sattelite for their FTA services (NOTE: FREE TO AIR ) and there is absolutely NO restrictions on the STB's nor is a Smart Card used so why is Australia going down this Draconian over Governing path?

Gordon, the whole VAST vs Freeview NZ thing has been covered so many times on this forum. They're not the same at all. NZ has the same channels everywhere, they don't have multiple timezones or affiliates or some channels with Rugby and others with AFL, etc etc. I hate VAST's card marriage, but NZ is not a good comparison.

[ags_]

I doubt the card and box are married before activation, if they were when we apply for activation they would only require the card or box number, not both.

You only need the card number, the box number is not required as they are married in the factory. I can confirm this as I mixed up two cards and boxes and no activation took place untill I placed them in the correct boxes.

[efab]

You only need the card number, the box number is not required as they are married in the factory. I can confirm this as I mixed up two cards and boxes and no activation took place untill I placed them in the correct boxes.

Not sure about this comment, I have done over 15 activations and each one needed both the box and card serial numbers.

Can't comment about them being done in the factory as I never thought about playing around with them.

Maybe the next I do I'll have a play

[ags_]

Not sure about this comment, I have done over 15 activations and each one needed both the box and card serial numbers.

Can't comment about them being done in the factory as I never thought about playing around with them.

Maybe the next I do I'll have a play

I've done all mine online, there is nowhere to put the box serial number, only the card serial number input is available and required.

[efab]

ok thanks for that, i haven't done one for about 4 weeks

cheers

[Strada916]

Xplorer is correct. about the marage process

[Tassie Devil]

Just sent copies of that letter to Turnbull to the three independent MHR members.

We need to stir the pot about this.

John