PDA

View Full Version : Direct TV?



cidley69
02-27-2005, 11:05 PM
Anyone know the skinny on direct TV in Canada? Is it still greymarket? Can you subscribe from Canada now? Do you still have to give a USA address to subscribe?

Is there an 'unhackable' card now in use, or has it been hacked yet? What are the latest cards they use called?

IS there some kind of forum or site that would answer these kinds of questions?

Any thoughts appreciated.

Kobe
02-27-2005, 11:27 PM
Umm used to be called Hu cards, i dunno if its hacked yet. and im pretty sure u can get direct t.v but only some channels in canada.. anyways its piracy hacking a direct t.v dish, so dont do it :)

TurboMedic
02-27-2005, 11:28 PM
HU is still down, and won't come back, I'm not sure if there is a p5 loader on the market yet, not that I've heard anyhow, so until then my DTV system is a paperweight!

cidley69
02-27-2005, 11:33 PM
Shite,

I thought I scored big buying a whole DTV system at a garage sale for $25! I guess I bought an expensive paper weight.

Does anyone know where to watch/check in case they come up with this 'P5 loader'?


:banghead:

cidley69
02-28-2005, 12:00 AM
I was reading around on some forums, and apparently 'Dishnetwork' is still available greymarket style.

(greymarket=not legal and not illegal, as far as I can tell)

anyone got the real definition of greymarket as it applies to procuring stray wavelengths?

Kobe
02-28-2005, 01:33 AM
Dishnetwork is not bad, we have it aswell hehe, there is not to many PPV channels on it, but my dad uses it for the Polish channels. We just got a Dish 500 :) hopefully it works well :)

vietdood
02-28-2005, 02:02 AM
you can try using the FTA recievers

cidley69
03-17-2005, 02:46 PM
Any change on the status of Direct TV in Canada lately?

:dunno:

Is there a forum about DTV anyone knows of, to keep up-to-date on the latest developments?

Thanks!

sputnik
03-17-2005, 02:57 PM
change is what status?

rage2
03-17-2005, 03:02 PM
NO HACKING TALK ALLOWED

With that out of the way...

hacking is ILLEGAL. Zero tolerance policy on hacking TV cards, etc.

Subscribing to DirecTV or Dishnetwork is currently legal. To subscribe to DirecTV or Dish Network you need a US phone number inside the US (US cell phones in Canada don't work), US address, US social security number, and a credit card (Canadian ones work fine).

Best way to do it is to find a friend in the states, activate it, and send the activated receiver to you in Canada.

TurboMedic
03-17-2005, 07:28 PM
I don't remember any hacking talking going on, just status, and FTA which is a legal form of free satellite.........:dunno:

googe
03-17-2005, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by TurboMedic
I don't remember any hacking talking going on, just status, and FTA which is a legal form of free satellite.........:dunno:

can you read? :nut:

VT777
03-17-2005, 08:22 PM
FTA is good.. requires no cards..

sCream
03-17-2005, 08:40 PM
can someone explain to me how FTA works.. and what the difference between that and getting Dish/BEV? Ive never understood FTA and since soon there wont be any alternatives, i want to get some info on it.

VT777
03-17-2005, 09:05 PM
Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

aln
03-17-2005, 09:14 PM
Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

googe
03-17-2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by aln
haha stop saying hack. its called testing! we're just testing them secure their networks. as far as i know everythings going to be down soon and there will nothing but to subscribe for shaw, bell or starchoice. remember this...its more illegal to pay for US satellite then to test their channels. its in the law ;)

thats plain wrong :)

rage2
03-17-2005, 10:30 PM
From here on in this thread, and links or discussions of piracy will result in a ban. Zero tolerance.

Tyler883
03-23-2005, 11:04 PM
Is it ok to debate the morality of hacking as long as we don't talk about the hacking technical details???

TurboMedic
03-24-2005, 12:15 AM
FTA is not piracy

rage2
03-24-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Tyler883
Is it ok to debate the morality of hacking as long as we don't talk about the hacking technical details???
Yes.

Originally posted by TurboMedic
FTA is not piracy
No it's not, but FTA receivers used to hack IS. Notice I didn't remove the FTA posts.

TurboMedic
03-24-2005, 10:49 AM
Yes, thank you! :D

BerserkerCatSplat
03-24-2005, 11:16 AM
There's been a lot of talk of this FTA thing... can someone enlighten me as to what it is?

cidley69
03-24-2005, 11:44 AM
FTA is Free To Air

I think its satellite signal that's allowed to go out unscrambled. Does this mean its perfectly legal to take the signal and watch it?

Does FTA also include the unscrambling of scrambled channels not intended to be free?

There are lots of websites about free to air, most want to sell you receivers and dishes.

Search for FTA forums if you want to know more about it.

:dunno:

Tyler883
03-24-2005, 12:30 PM
Here's a response to that Bell Expressvu commercial where the kid gets caught stealing a chocolate bar and says "but dad, you steal satelite TV?":

Response:"Son, if a someone shoots cocco powder, and peanuts, and little dust particals of caramel into your home, and you go out and buy a device that makes it all into chocolate bars......(It's may be illegal, but).... it's NOT stealing"

"Further more, if the chocolate bar device comes with a key(that will cost you a monthly fee), but it is legal for you to purchase a differnet key from someone else(that doesn't come with a monthly fee), ...it may be ilegal to use, but ...it's not "stealing" to use property that is rightfully yours"

This is what freedom is all about, folks!
This is what free enterprise is all about, folks!

cidley69
03-24-2005, 12:46 PM
So, THEY are invading OUR private space with their "waves of energy". If we choose to have a device to put together these "waves" into a usable form, like TV signal, then that is not stealing.

Because they are shooting these beams into our private, personal space without us asking them to. They are basically "virtually trespassing" into our areas with their beams.

Turning these unbidden invasions of private space into tv signal doesn't seem in the least morally questionable.


:devil:

32V-V8
03-24-2005, 02:42 PM
Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

legendboy
03-24-2005, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by cidley69
So, THEY are invading OUR private space with their "waves of energy". If we choose to have a device to put together these "waves" into a usable form, like TV signal, then that is not stealing.

Because they are shooting these beams into our private, personal space without us asking them to. They are basically "virtually trespassing" into our areas with their beams.

Turning these unbidden invasions of private space into tv signal doesn't seem in the least morally questionable.


:devil:

haha this is actually a good point man :rofl:

rage2
03-24-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by cidley69
I think its satellite signal that's allowed to go out unscrambled. Does this mean its perfectly legal to take the signal and watch it?
Yes.

Originally posted by cidley69
Does FTA also include the unscrambling of scrambled channels not intended to be free?
NO.

BTW - when I say ZERO TOLERANCE, I fucking MEAN ZERO TOLERANCE.

rage2
03-24-2005, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by cidley69
So, THEY are invading OUR private space with their "waves of energy". If we choose to have a device to put together these "waves" into a usable form, like TV signal, then that is not stealing.

Because they are shooting these beams into our private, personal space without us asking them to. They are basically "virtually trespassing" into our areas with their beams.

Turning these unbidden invasions of private space into tv signal doesn't seem in the least morally questionable.


:devil:
So if a girl selling girl scout cookies come to your door, she is invading your area. Can you rape her? No.

If a guy tresspasses on your property, are you allowed to take a shotgun and kill him? No.

Just because someone is invading your space, doesn't give you the right to commit a crime.

cidley69
03-24-2005, 03:40 PM
I'm sorry to have started a controversal thread. Apperently evening talking about it falls into "grey" areas.

Just trying to debate the morality of the issue.

I am definately not advocating anything.

Tyler883
03-24-2005, 03:48 PM
If a company delivers an unsilicited CD full of music to your house, you are not legal bound to pay them for it. Yet, if you open the CD and use it, you probably have to pay them for it.

If a group of singers come to your front door and start singing, there isn't a court in the world that is going to make you pay them money if you stand there and listen to the entire song.

If I have a satelite device that is capable of processing a signal( just like my ears are capable of processing the singing) I should not have to pay for the satelite signals.

Now think back to the CD, if the satelite signal was actually packaged in a wrapper, and by opening this wrapper you were somehow rendering the product "used" and the company was not able to recover the product in its available state...I would say that you need to pay them.......but this is certainly not the case with encrypted satelite signals, ie whether you watch it or dont watch it, it is an unrecoverable signal that the satelite company merely throws at you with no intent or capability to take it back.

ie other words, they aren't any different than a bunch of singers at your front door that are whining about the fact that you aren't using their "ears" to listen to them.

rage2
03-24-2005, 05:24 PM
Your satellite device is not processing the signal. It is breaking the encryption, THEN processing the unencrypted signal. This is where you're breaking the law.

It's like if someone leaves their car on your driveway. You can have it removed from your premesis. Hell, you can build a anti-microwave wall around your house so you do not get the signals. What you can not to is break into the car and use it for yourself. That's illegal. Therefore, breaking the encryption to use the satellite signals is illegal.

Singing at your door, they're giving you a right to listen to their music. Not breaking any laws. Unsolicited CD to your house with NO encryption, not breaking the law. A government CD encrypted with data not meant for you that got to your house, and you decrypt it, breaking the law.

rage2
03-24-2005, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by cidley69
I'm sorry to have started a controversal thread. Apperently evening talking about it falls into "grey" areas.

Just trying to debate the morality of the issue.

I am definately not advocating anything.
I was talking about 32V-V8. Everyone else here has been contributing to a good discussion ;).

Tyler883
03-26-2005, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by rage2
Your satellite device is not processing the signal. It is breaking the encryption, THEN processing the unencrypted signal. This is where you're breaking the law.

It's like if someone leaves their car on your driveway. You can have it removed from your premesis. Hell, you can build a anti-microwave wall around your house so you do not get the signals. What you can not to is break into the car and use it for yourself. That's illegal. Therefore, breaking the encryption to use the satellite signals is illegal.

Singing at your door, they're giving you a right to listen to their music. Not breaking any laws. Unsolicited CD to your house with NO encryption, not breaking the law. A government CD encrypted with data not meant for you that got to your house, and you decrypt it, breaking the law.

I see similarities with an encrypted signal, a locked car, and a CD that is still wraped in its original cellophane.. I can undrstand why the owner would be upset if you didn't pay them for the previledge to open them.

But, I also see some differnences, too.

The car owner isn't trying to sell you the car, then liscense the fuel injection software to you at a monthly fee. And, it isn't illegal to drive a car that has an after market fuel injection module that uses someone elses software.

With the CD, they are selling you a phisical copy of data(often music). The disc does not vanish into thin air after you listen to it. You do not have to continually pay to listen to it. If I buy CDs on a monthly basis, then after several years I decide to stop, I am not without entertainment....everything that I've paid for it still accessable.

googe
03-26-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by rage2
Your satellite device is not processing the signal. It is breaking the encryption, THEN processing the unencrypted signal. This is where you're breaking the law.

It's like if someone leaves their car on your driveway. You can have it removed from your premesis. Hell, you can build a anti-microwave wall around your house so you do not get the signals. What you can not to is break into the car and use it for yourself. That's illegal. Therefore, breaking the encryption to use the satellite signals is illegal.

Singing at your door, they're giving you a right to listen to their music. Not breaking any laws. Unsolicited CD to your house with NO encryption, not breaking the law. A government CD encrypted with data not meant for you that got to your house, and you decrypt it, breaking the law.

your analogies are flawed because they involve interaction with a tangible item leaving it in a different state than it was before you used it. these 2 cannot be compared.

raping, killing, etc are not even close to being comparable :thumbsup:

eblend
03-27-2005, 01:37 AM
fta channels are very limited if you go that route...things like nasa channel is fta, no enclyption

direct tv was never hacked and prolly never will be as it uses encryption standards that are only used in the usa and canada, aka rest of the work doesn't give a damn = europe and such don't evne bother to brake it

nagravision on the other hand, the system used on bell and dish network is worldwide and much more widespread, that is why bell and dish are loosing massive amounts of money over it

Tyler883
03-30-2005, 10:27 AM
Beleive me, Bell isn't loosing money....it doesn't increase their expenses to have hackers veiw their channels.

Besides, all hackers had to buy a receiver. I dont see Bell offering money back to anyone who has a receiver collecting dust in a closet.

In addition, many hackers still maintain a basic subscription.

And I doubt that the others are the kind to pay a monthly fee to anyone.

I know alot of people that say "if I had to pay for TV, I wouln't because it isn't worth it" They would just get out the rabbit ears, again.

As little as 5 years ago, Canadians and the Canadian government would frown on the idea that it was illegal for a communist to watch western world TV...

..I guess corporate profits justifies a law that communism never will.

googe
03-30-2005, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by eblend


direct tv was never hacked and prolly never will be as it uses encryption standards that are only used in the usa and canada, aka rest of the work doesn't give a damn = europe and such don't evne bother to brake it

nagravision on the other hand, the system used on bell and dish network is worldwide and much more widespread, that is why bell and dish are loosing massive amounts of money over it

:rofl: why do people make up random stuff that is so far from true?