"London Live" on Sky UK provider

[BrokenUnusableAccount]

https://github.com/oe-alliance/AutoB...6761e2f7da37ca

Wow. I don't believe it. You don't just remove the channel in question. You rip the logic section out as well.

Well you did seem to completely reject the idea of using it, and remember "using it" in this case means fixing the existing usage of it so it continues to allow "London Live" outside London.


Please point me to instructions on how to add "London Live" via custom mix.
I did have one go at by copying some of the old code from the provider but it didn't seem to work.

[BrokenUnusableAccount]

Brian, have you checked what happens on London region if you change this to 173?

Yes. In London "London Live" is assigned to 117 by Sky, and "BBC Three" gets 173 which stops the hack putting "London Live" in 173.

However if custom_mix is going to be the way to this from now on it's irrelivant.

[BrokenUnusableAccount]

I'll just chip in also and say that this is an edge case for those users who have Sky cards which can be used to decrypt this FTV service. It's of no interest to those of use who use only FTA services. I could add in this channel through CustomMix if I had a card.

If you have a card slot why on earth wouldn't you obtain an expired Sky Card so you can watch a few extra channels.
It's true though, that back when I got mine there were more channels in this catagory.

It doesn't seem that long ago that I was regularly amazed to see people on this forum asking about fully encrypted channels like "ITV 4 HD" because they were diappointed that Sky had improved the encryption so that OpenViX could no longer decrypt them with their Sky card and current paid Sky subscription.

[Huevos]

Brian, please answer post #12, which was made before anyone deleted anything.

[BrokenUnusableAccount]

Brian, please answer post #12, which was made before anyone deleted anything.

Yes I have checked.
See post #17

However I do admit that slightly different logic might represent the ideal way to get this result.
The original "in provider hack" was intended to put channels in their original number in cases where they weren't already there, this would be using it to put it in a different number when something else wasn't using that number.

[Huevos]

So how do you want to handle that?

[Joe_90]

If your argument is: This is no good for people using FTA, so pointless adding it. If so, I would point out that the service will be omitted if FTA scan mode was used. And the fact that the hack is already in the file is being ignored. I suppose best we remove the hack and who want it can add it on their personal file.

abu - if the channel is omitted in an ABM FTA "scan", then fine - it's not affecting FTA users. I thought maybe it was being added into the normal ABM mix.

[BrokenUnusableAccount]

So how do you want to handle that?

If just changeing where the original code said "117" to "173" is unacceptable I don't think I'm going to be able to come up with anything.

[Huevos]

abu - if the channel is omitted in an ABM FTA "scan", then fine - it's not affecting FTA users. I thought maybe it was being added into the normal ABM mix.

It is being added in the normal mix along with all the other encrypted channels that still open with a subscription card.

[Huevos]

If just changeing where the original code said "117" to "173" is unacceptable I don't think I'm going to be able to come up with anything.

What are the 3 most important things...? Delete, delete, delete.

[BrokenUnusableAccount]

What are the 3 most important things...? Delete, delete, delete.

I don't understand.
Are you angry?
Just reminding me that the deletions that have been done since my original post would have to be undone?

[Huevos]

Brian, some people delete things while the discussion is still ongoing. Obviously the discussion part of the process is irrelevant to them.

[abu baniaz]

I have reverted the removal..

[Huevos]

So Brian you are free to send a pull request (as long as you test first).

[Huevos]

I have reverted the removal so that some people can continue to say that this should be in a mix file and also reject conditonalising the insert. We have yet to hear "ABM should be making bouquets exactly as per Provider order".

That is what Satscan test tool does, so if anyone is not happy with what ABM produces they can use that tool.