4 ms·
Yep that makes sense. I would also expect BT and their subsidiaries (plus.net, giffgaff, ee, etc) to be involved as BT also off a subscription based BT Sports
by Lio 5y ago
Yep that makes sense. I would also expect BT and their subsidiaries (plus.net, giffgaff, ee, etc) to be involved as BT also off a subscription based BT Sports service.
Got to wonder if simply using a VPN would sort the problem out or if they could make the case in court that the volume of traffic and the time it was downloaded matches the pirate stream.
Seems dubious.
- petepete 5y agoI bet Virgin Media will be under pressure to follow suit too, seeing how lots (probably most) of their TV offering is from Sky.
- mprev 5y agoNot that it really matters but GiffGaff is owned by the newly combined Virgin Media O2.
- signal11 5y agoYes, IIRC Giffgaff was originally owned by Telefonica, O2’s parent. Never by BT.
- Lio 5y agoOk right you are. What's weird though is that O2 were once BT's mobile arm (BT Cellnet) so it's all still a bit incestuous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O2_(UK) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O2_(UK)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bentcorner 5y agoWhile a VPN might technically work it doesn't excuse the overstep from Sky. IMO this shouldn't have happened in the first place. Makes me wonder if we (technically proficient users) are coming at this from the wrong angle. Ads? No problem, adblock. Bittorrent scare letters? No problem, VPN. Tracking? No problem, pihole/firefox/linux/lineageos/whatever. We are solving these problems at the wrong end and are leaving less-capable users behind.
- dcow 5y agoExactly. I find it to be rather egotistical that tech people think all the problems can be solved with some clever software. I mean I get it, but if we spent half the time engaging in finding civil solutions I bet we’d get a lot further than browser ad block.