| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a
lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! She night think it is up for wank but I will eat my hat of they do not charge a substantial fee. The box will be £300+ too. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"steeler" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! She night think it is up for wank but I will eat my hat of they do not charge a substantial fee. The box will be £300+ too. What type of hat have you got? At most it will be a tenner which is hardly substantial. Siggy |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! Ed has a point. BSKYB, as most people now know, is crap. Tired old movies, awful presentation, annoying software, which you could get more of the same on FREEVIEW for, erm, free. SKY HD will be like Sky Plus two years ago. The FREEVIEW-killer: the one reason to pay for Sky and not get yourself a Topfield TF5800 and don't pay again. SKY HD could be the only reason to want to pay for TV. It defies the law of common sense how Sky can month on month increase its subscriber base yet they do. You've go to hand it to Sky. These guys could sell ice to eskimos. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
Ed has a point. BSKYB, as most people now know, is crap. Tired old movies, awful presentation, annoying software, which you could get more of the same on FREEVIEW for, erm, free. SKY HD will be like Sky Plus two years ago. The FREEVIEW-killer: the one reason to pay for Sky and not get yourself a Topfield TF5800 and don't pay again. SKY HD could be the only reason to want to pay for TV. It defies the law of common sense how Sky can month on month increase its subscriber base yet they do. You've go to hand it to Sky. These guys could sell ice to eskimos. Just to add that if I were Sky, I would question whether I would want my suppliers making anything but Sky HD boxes from now on. For Sky to want to direct all new customers direct to the invincible Sky HD platform only and to commence migrating its high value customer base to Sky HD gives it major advantage over its rivals. The timing of this would be based on some algebraic formulae. Something like Demand over price resistance divided by churn multiplied by cost of upgrade less cost of rival platform impact over time. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Something like Demand over price resistance divided by churn multiplied by cost of upgrade less cost of rival platform impact over time. Plus the fact that Joe Chav seems completely happy to pay £1500 for a huge plasma or LCD screen which is HD ready, so presumably he's also got a couple of hundred quid that he's already put aside (mentally, not physically - credit card debt will finance it as usual) for his HD box. And just wait to the $ky marketing starts... Jesus Christ's second coming himself could be out-gunned by how Sky marketing will present this. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Ed" wrote in message ups.com... And just wait to the $ky marketing starts... Jesus Christ's second coming himself could be out-gunned by how Sky marketing will present this. Their current advert web site sky.com/hd is crap, and there are a few leaflets in various electrical stores. The calm before the storm? The ****-wit goldfish advert campaign (the irony) is still in full steam especially on day time TV. Adverts often portray the ****-wit public as enterprises perceive their customers. So a talking goldfish tells one to procure Sky and people do. Well I suppose you would have to be goldfish to need logos to remind you of the channel you selected and so you forget the quantity of repeats that fills the digital ecology. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Siggy" wrote in message ... "steeler" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! She night think it is up for wank but I will eat my hat of they do not charge a substantial fee. The box will be £300+ too. What type of hat have you got? At most it will be a tenner which is hardly substantial. It is a trilby. The forfeit lies not only in the loss of a £100 hat but the mastication and digesting of said hat. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... And just wait to the $ky marketing starts... Jesus Christ's second coming himself could be out-gunned by how Sky marketing will present this. Their current advert web site sky.com/hd is crap, and there are a few leaflets in various electrical stores. The calm before the storm? The ****-wit goldfish advert campaign (the irony) is still in full steam especially on day time TV. Adverts often portray the ****-wit public as enterprises perceive their customers. So a talking goldfish tells one to procure Sky and people do. Well I suppose you would have to be goldfish to need logos to remind you of the channel you selected and so you forget the quantity of repeats that fills the digital ecology. They will need to show some marketing skill to sell what is on offer. HD sport (mostly watched down the pub), Artsworld (yeah, chavs love watching opera in HD), National Geographic (see Artsworld) and Sky One - where they have already admitted that half the programs will be upscaled versions rather than native HD. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
In article ,
steeler wrote: "Heracles Pollux" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... And just wait to the $ky marketing starts... Jesus Christ's second coming himself could be out-gunned by how Sky marketing will present this. Their current advert web site sky.com/hd is crap, and there are a few leaflets in various electrical stores. The calm before the storm? The ****-wit goldfish advert campaign (the irony) is still in full steam especially on day time TV. Adverts often portray the ****-wit public as enterprises perceive their customers. So a talking goldfish tells one to procure Sky and people do. Well I suppose you would have to be goldfish to need logos to remind you of the channel you selected and so you forget the quantity of repeats that fills the digital ecology. They will need to show some marketing skill to sell what is on offer. HD sport (mostly watched down the pub), Artsworld (yeah, chavs love watching opera in HD), National Geographic (see Artsworld) and Sky One - where they have already admitted that half the programs will be upscaled versions rather than native HD. They will have to avoid the term HD about individual programmes but will put on more at higher quality than today (not difficult) and let people think those are HD. I'll save my money and make do with whatever programmes are broadcast on Freeview in the same quality as Planet Earth. -- John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra free will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be an extra sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"No-One" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra free will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be an extra sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC. Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have plenty of time to decide. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Ed" wrote in message roups.com... Something like Demand over price resistance divided by churn multiplied by cost of upgrade less cost of rival platform impact over time. Plus the fact that Joe Chav seems completely happy to pay £1500 for a huge plasma or LCD screen which is HD ready, so presumably he's also got a couple of hundred quid that he's already put aside (mentally, not physically - credit card debt will finance it as usual) for his HD box. From the reports I've read, a large proportion of HD buyers expect the tv picture to be HD as soon as they get it home. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"steeler" wrote in message ... "No-One" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra free will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be an extra sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC. Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have plenty of time to decide. I'm confused about this - what's with the locked channels denoted "HD" then? |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
In uk.media.tv.sky steeler wrote:
: Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have : plenty of time to decide. NO THEY ARE NOT!!! HD services are on test now/very soon and will be launched to the general public by (probably) May/June so detailed debate within Sky as to policy/pricing/target audience WILL be taking place NOW! |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Schrodinger" wrote in message . .. "steeler" wrote in message ... "No-One" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra free will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be an extra sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC. Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have plenty of time to decide. I'm confused about this - what's with the locked channels denoted "HD" then? A good way of guaging the market? If you go to the trouble of phoning them, you must want it, from that they can estimate the proportion of subs likely to take it up. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message roups.com... Something like Demand over price resistance divided by churn multiplied by cost of upgrade less cost of rival platform impact over time. Plus the fact that Joe Chav seems completely happy to pay £1500 for a huge plasma or LCD screen which is HD ready, so presumably he's also got a couple of hundred quid that he's already put aside (mentally, not physically - credit card debt will finance it as usual) for his HD box. From the reports I've read, a large proportion of HD buyers expect the tv picture to be HD as soon as they get it home. They all buy the sets from Currys so the salesmen do not discourage this view. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message ... In uk.media.tv.sky steeler wrote: : Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have : plenty of time to decide. NO THEY ARE NOT!!! HD services are on test now/very soon and will be launched to the general public by (probably) May/June so detailed debate within Sky as to policy/pricing/target audience WILL be taking place NOW! Stop shouting. If you had not snipped the OP you would see that I was responding to "I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC." in that any BBC service will not be available for country-wide roll-out on a sky platform for, IMO, at least a year. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Schrodinger" wrote in message . .. "steeler" wrote in message ... "No-One" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+ and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g. Sports World or Movies World. She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we all are! What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra free will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be an extra sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC. Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have plenty of time to decide. I'm confused about this - what's with the locked channels denoted "HD" then? Sorry for the confusion. Sky HD channels are launching soon - when I said "at least a year" I was referring to the BBC HD output No-One mentioned. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
Tumbleweed wrote: "Ed" wrote in message roups.com... Something like Demand over price resistance divided by churn multipliedby cost of upgrade less cost of rival platform impact over time. Plus the fact that Joe Chav seems completely happy to pay £1500 for a huge plasma or LCD screen which is HD ready, so presumably he's also got a couple of hundred quid that he's already put aside (mentally, not physically - credit card debt will finance it as usual) for his HD box. From the reports I've read, a large proportion of HD buyers expect the tv picture to be HD as soon as they get it home. There was a report in a recent edition of 'What Video' about a survey that showed that of those Americans who _thought_ there were receiving HD broadcasts, half actually weren't. A common misassumption was that an HD set was all they needed. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
|
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
----- Original Message -----
From: "steeler" Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.sky,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:30 AM Subject: Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone in that any BBC service will not be available for country-wide roll-out on a sky platform for, IMO, at least a year. That seems very pessimistic given that the BBC have said they will start HD services on the 15th May and will broadcast on Satellite and cable as soon as possible. Sky are expected to start services at about that date. The announcement from Sky due tomorrow should clarify. -- HDTV UK FAQ http://www.burnyourbonus.co.uk/HDTV/faq.html |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Jim" wrote in message ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "steeler" Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.sky,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:30 AM Subject: Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone in that any BBC service will not be available for country-wide roll-out on a sky platform for, IMO, at least a year. That seems very pessimistic given that the BBC have said they will start HD services on the 15th May and will broadcast on Satellite and cable as soon as possible. Sky are expected to start services at about that date. The announcement from Sky due tomorrow should clarify. Regarding the BBC. Tests in London only start by that date. Also while sky cannot block the BBC from putting their channels on satellite they sure can drag their heels. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
Jim wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "steeler" Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.sky,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:30 AM Subject: Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone in that any BBC service will not be available for country-wide roll-out on a sky platform for, IMO, at least a year. That seems very pessimistic given that the BBC have said they will start HD services on the 15th May and will broadcast on Satellite and cable as soon as possible. Sky are expected to start services at about that date. The announcement from Sky due tomorrow should clarify. -- HDTV UK FAQ http://www.burnyourbonus.co.uk/HDTV/faq.html On BBC digital text they announced they would be broadcasting HD on key Wimbledon and World Cup matches. -- Ian. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
steeler wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "steeler" Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.sky,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:30 AM Subject: Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone in that any BBC service will not be available for country-wide roll-out on a sky platform for, IMO, at least a year. That seems very pessimistic given that the BBC have said they will start HD services on the 15th May and will broadcast on Satellite and cable as soon as possible. Sky are expected to start services at about that date. The announcement from Sky due tomorrow should clarify. Regarding the BBC. Tests in London only start by that date. Also while sky cannot block the BBC from putting their channels on satellite they sure can drag their heels. Not just London. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds30793.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4834322.stm -- Adrian A |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
Adrian A wrote:
steeler wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "steeler" Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.sky,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:30 AM Subject: Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone in that any BBC service will not be available for country-wide roll-out on a sky platform for, IMO, at least a year. That seems very pessimistic given that the BBC have said they will start HD services on the 15th May and will broadcast on Satellite and cable as soon as possible. Sky are expected to start services at about that date. The announcement from Sky due tomorrow should clarify. Regarding the BBC. Tests in London only start by that date. Also while sky cannot block the BBC from putting their channels on satellite they sure can drag their heels. Not just London. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds30793.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4834322.stm Also http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/pressoffi.../08/hdtv.shtml |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:38:50 -0000, "Adrian A" wrote:
Not just London. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds30793.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4834322.stm Also http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/pressoffi.../08/hdtv.shtml The BBC articles are pretty thin on technical content & in fact that last link is to a BBC press release from last November. However the Digital Spy article says "The BBC's HD service will be available via Sky's forthcoming HD service". So is it going to be possible to buy a Sky HD receiver without subscribing? Alternatively is there a non-Sky HD receiver that could be used to view the BBC? -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:38:50 -0000, "Adrian A" wrote: Not just London. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds30793.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4834322.stm Also http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/pressoffi.../08/hdtv.shtml The BBC articles are pretty thin on technical content & in fact that last link is to a BBC press release from last November. However the Digital Spy article says "The BBC's HD service will be available via Sky's forthcoming HD service". So is it going to be possible to buy a Sky HD receiver without subscribing? You will have to wait until they announce pricing to know for sure. If HD boxes from sky are subsidised I imagine they will find some way to clawback the costs. Alternatively is there a non-Sky HD receiver that could be used to view the BBC? Not yet. I imagine a fair few are in development though. |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... The BBC articles are pretty thin on technical content & in fact that last link is to a BBC press release from last November. However the Digital Spy article says "The BBC's HD service will be available via Sky's forthcoming HD service". So is it going to be possible to buy a Sky HD receiver without subscribing? Alternatively is there a non-Sky HD receiver that could be used to view the BBC? Sky HD boxes are £399 without a HD sub. £299 with a £10 sub As shown on the www.sky.com/hd website Loz |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"steeler" wrote in message .. . You will have to wait until they announce pricing to know for sure. If HD boxes from sky are subsidised I imagine they will find some way to clawback the costs. Prices have been announced. See www.sky.com/hd for details Loz |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:46:49 -0000, "loz"
wrote: "Nigel Barker" wrote in message .. . The BBC articles are pretty thin on technical content & in fact that last link is to a BBC press release from last November. However the Digital Spy article says "The BBC's HD service will be available via Sky's forthcoming HD service". So is it going to be possible to buy a Sky HD receiver without subscribing? Alternatively is there a non-Sky HD receiver that could be used to view the BBC? Sky HD boxes are £399 without a HD sub. £299 with a £10 sub As shown on the www.sky.com/hd website I can't find that information there. It probably isn't surprising as I got fed up clicking through all the flashy animation & slow displays. I just see 299 pounds for the box but it only mentions subscribers either existing or new. Why can't they just have a simple static page with the prices? -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
|
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Mal Franks" wrote in message t... Sky HD boxes are £399 without a HD sub. £299 with a £10 sub As shown on the www.sky.com/hd website £20 sub for those of us who aren't movies/sports subscribers as there's the £10 per month charge for the Sky+ features on top of this. The Sky+ sub isn't mandatory to use the Sky HD box. Hence £10 is appropriate figure to quote for HD - which I was doing, as in "...HD sub" The Sky+ sub is only for the Sky+ features. In which case, if you want both, then yes £20 loz |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
In article ,
says... "Mal Franks" wrote in message t... Sky HD boxes are £399 without a HD sub. £299 with a £10 sub As shown on the www.sky.com/hd website £20 sub for those of us who aren't movies/sports subscribers as there's the £10 per month charge for the Sky+ features on top of this. The Sky+ sub isn't mandatory to use the Sky HD box. Hence £10 is appropriate figure to quote for HD - which I was doing, asin "...HD sub" The Sky+ sub is only for the Sky+ features. In which case, if you want both, then yes £20 loz i assume you'll need to pay for the + features if you want to record HD broadcasts though :/ |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
"Mal Franks" wrote in message t... The Sky+ sub is only for the Sky+ features. In which case, if you want both, then yes £20 i assume you'll need to pay for the + features if you want to record HD broadcasts though :/ Well duh, yes. Didn't I make that clear? Loz |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
Nigel Barker wrote:
So is it going to be possible to buy a Sky HD receiver without subscribing? Sky would have to make these available for the same reason that they have to make regular digiboxes available without subscription. Alternatively is there a non-Sky HD receiver that could be used to view the BBC? Yes. Any HD sat box will do the trick. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5 UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/ Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:19:44 +0100, Jomtien wrote:
Nigel Barker wrote: So is it going to be possible to buy a Sky HD receiver without subscribing? Sky would have to make these available for the same reason that they have to make regular digiboxes available without subscription. Just out of interest why do Sky have to make regular digiboxes available without subscription? Alternatively is there a non-Sky HD receiver that could be used to view the BBC? Yes. Any HD sat box will do the trick. Presumably they will suffer the same lack of EPG as FTA non-HD satellite receivers. Normally you recommend purchase of a Sky digibox for viewing the Sky platform for just that reason. -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
Nigel Barker wrote:
Sky would have to make these available for the same reason that they have to make regular digiboxes available without subscription. Just out of interest why do Sky have to make regular digiboxes available without subscription? The EU requires it. This dates back quite some time. Yes. Any HD sat box will do the trick. Presumably they will suffer the same lack of EPG as FTA non-HD satellite receivers. More non-Sky receivers now seem to be capable of interpreting the Sky EPG data. My Echostar can't but it is rather old. I don't think that any can use the series link functionality. Normally you recommend purchase of a Sky digibox for viewing the Sky platform for just that reason. Indeed, and for the FTV channels. But that's for the regular box which is now very cheap. At £400 for an HD box I would have to think twice. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5 UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/ Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:48:31 +0200, Jomtien wrote:
Nigel Barker wrote: Sky would have to make these available for the same reason that they have to make regular digiboxes available without subscription. Just out of interest why do Sky have to make regular digiboxes available without subscription? The EU requires it. This dates back quite some time. I though that the EU required provision of a Videoguard CAM too. Yes. Any HD sat box will do the trick. Presumably they will suffer the same lack of EPG as FTA non-HD satellite receivers. More non-Sky receivers now seem to be capable of interpreting the Sky EPG data. My Echostar can't but it is rather old. I don't think that any can use the series link functionality. Have you got a pointer to one? Normally you recommend purchase of a Sky digibox for viewing the Sky platform for just that reason. Indeed, and for the FTV channels. But that's for the regular box which is now very cheap. At £400 for an HD box I would have to think twice. I expect the price will drop. If one could access the hard disk recording without paying the ridiculous 10 pounds per month charge it would be good value at the un subsidised price. -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com