SKY+
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

This is exactly what Jomtien said;
"Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG ..."

e.g he is saying it had no production hosts, eg it was free.

Thats plainly incorrect, since in order to record and playback a Sky+ box
has additional software compared to a standard box (which also has to read
the EPG) and that software cost something to produce (and maintain)

The Sky+ box as sold is perfectly capable of recording. It requires no
extra software and no extra development (even though all digiboxes, in
common with many other bits of technology, do get free updates from
time to time : so why not the Sky+?). Any costs involved in getting it
to record at the point of sale are, of course, covered by the purchase
price.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

SKY+
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

No, it costs nothing. Therefore there is no reason why one should pay
for it. Anyone who thinks that it costs Sky something to let the Sky+
record is an idiot. The functionality is contained in the box. Just
like any VCR, DVDR, Freeview hard drive recorder, Ipod etc. etc.


What, the software in the SKy+ coded itself?

Of course not, any more than the Ipod invented itself. However all
other recording devices cover their development and manufacturing
costs from the purchase price. Just as happens with every other thing
you buy.


And new features are designed,
added, tested, debugged, and rolled out 'for free'? Remarkable!

Well, that is exactly what does happen with updates for all other
devices. But it is all funded from the purchase cost.

Different argument.

It certainly is not. It is exactly the same thing. And this is where
you systematically get it wrong every time.


Perhaps all companies that produce software should go with that model and
avoid all the unpleasant costs that normally come when producing a
computer
program.

They don't avoid them but nor do they charge end-users a high monthly
fee to cover them. That is what the purchase price is for.


No, thats what you _want_ it to be for.

Good grief.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

SKY+
 

Clueless2 wrote:

A rip-off is anything being sold for substantially more than its
normal price or for which the price bears little or no relation to the
cost of providing the item or service.
Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG which is provided free
to all digibox users, this £10 fee is clearly a rip-off.

I am no fan of the extra Sky+ subscription either, but I think you are
missing a key point here. With a normal Sky subscription one can only watch
one program at a time. With a Sky+ subscription one can watch one program
while recording another or record two programs at the same time. In my
opinion

No, this isn't the case. If the Sky+ could *output* two things at a
time there would be a tenuous reason for charging extra for it.
However it cannot. It can only output 24 hours worth of TV per day, no
matter how you do it, and this is exactly the same as any other
digibox. So what is there to pay for? Should one pay extra for the
Discovery channel because there is a Discovery+1 channel? Should one
pay extra for a DVD because it has two soundtracks?

Also if your argument is correct why should Sky charge £10 for
allowing people to record two non-Sky non-pay channels?
And why do they anything to allow people to record just one channel?

You don't need any sort of subscription to use a Sky+ to watch non-pay
channels (and indeed I haven't had a Sky sub for 10 years) and there
is no reason why you should have to pay Sky a sub in order to record
those same channels either.


Sky is charging for this "additional" service and not for the
ability to record which in my opinion would have been paid for in the higher
purchase price of the Sky+ box.

You can buy a twin-tuner Freeview recorder for about the same price as
the Sky+ so clearly there is no possible argument of this nature.


This is also why a multiroom subscription costs more a single subscription
even though it does not actually cost Sky any real additional service cost
to provide a multiroom service or a single room service.

Actually multiroom doesn't cost mo it costs less. If you didn't
have multiroom you would have to have a second sub to be able to watch
two pay channels at the same time, and this would cost anywhere from
£13 to £40 per month. Sky reduce this to £10 Either way you do
actually get something for your money: a second channel output as the
same time.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

SKY+
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...

Oh dear. The whole point is that Sky prevent anyone from developing a
competing system by not releasing a VideoGuard CAM.
And I can only watch powervu encrypted programs by buying an
official powervu box as no cam is available for that either. (Or at least
not for the channels I'd want to watch).
There are many consumer items which are single source of supply.
Sky aren't the only ones doing this.
Nobody, including Sky, is preventing anyone from starting a rival
tv service and making their own boxes. BSB tried but failed and after
that everyone left it to Sky.

Many would argue that Sky are indeed breaking the law relating to the
abuse of a dominant trading position, and also EU and UK regulations
relating to both broadcasting and monopolies.
I agree that if they are breaking UK regulations and those who enforce
those regulations agree then something should be done about it. Either
they don't agree or they don't care. I've seen far to many stupid EU
regulations to take them seriously.


However, given that no UK government body ever does anything to upset
Sky this is probably irrelevant.
That's true.

SKY+
 

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:25:59 GMT, "Paul" wrote:

Nobody, including Sky, is preventing anyone from starting a rival
tv service and making their own boxes. BSB tried but failed and after
that everyone left it to Sky.

Don't forget On Digital...

--

SKY+
 

"loz" wrote in message
...
But again you can argue that the functionality to enable this is already
in the box - i.e. twin tuners.
You can only *watch* one thing at a time as there is only one decoder, so
cannot be considered equal to a mirror sub.

You are missing the point I am trying to make which has nothing to do with
the capability of the equipment. With Sky you have one choice, either to
record one program on your VCR/DVD/Whatever or to watch one program. You
cannot watch one program and record another at the same time unless you have
multiroom which costs an extra £10 a month as this provide an EXTRA service.

While one cannot watch two different programmes at the same time with Sky+,
one can still watch one program and record another - a kinda of halfway
house to Sky multiroom. This is infact a superior service for most as most
users cannot watch two programs at the same time and recording is much
easier on Sky+ than normal Sky which requires setting up the recorder as
well.

As it is only a halfway house to multiroom, I think this is the reason why
Sky+ is free if one is on the higher subscription package. This is not the
case for multiroom.

SKY+
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
No, this isn't the case. If the Sky+ could *output* two things at a
time there would be a tenuous reason for charging extra for it.

Outputing two things at the same time is YOUR requirement only and for this
Sky multiroom would meet this requirement alone.

As for me, I cannot watch two programmes at the same time, therefore being
able to watch one programme while I can record another is an additional
service beyond the normal Sky service/subscription. As I said in my post, I
am not entirely happy paying extra for this, but I do reconise that I am
benifitting an extra service over and above the normal Sky service which my
neighbour pays for. Therefore one could argue that it is only fair that user
of this extra service pays an extra subscription for it.

Put it another way if you went to the cinema and paid a fee to watch one
film, how would you feel if your neighbour went to the same cinema, pays the
same fee but gets to watch two films instead of one? This is in effect what
Sky+ is offering, I can watch one sporting event live (say tennis) while I
am recording another sporting event (say golf) from another channel, even
though I will have to watch the golf (timeshifted) later.

Also if your argument is correct why should Sky charge £10 for
allowing people to record two non-Sky non-pay channels?
And why do they anything to allow people to record just one channel?

Don't know - maybe the PVR side of th equipment is all or nothing? But why
does this matter as Sky does not wish to (or cannot) offer this service.

You don't need any sort of subscription to use a Sky+ to watch non-pay
channels (and indeed I haven't had a Sky sub for 10 years) and there
is no reason why you should have to pay Sky a sub in order to record
those same channels either.

So don't. No one is forcing you to. The Sky+ has been clearly published by
Sky and AFAIK it hasn't changed for a very long time.

Actually multiroom doesn't cost mo it costs less. If you didn't
have multiroom you would have to have a second sub to be able to watch
two pay channels at the same time, and this would cost anywhere from
£13 to £40 per month. Sky reduce this to £10 Either way you do
actually get something for your money: a second channel output as the
same time.

Only if one has the requirement to be able to watch two different programmes
at the same time.

SKY+
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
The Sky+ box as sold is perfectly capable of recording. It requires no
extra software and no extra development (even though all digiboxes, in
common with many other bits of technology, do get free updates from
time to time : so why not the Sky+?). Any costs involved in getting it
to record at the point of sale are, of course, covered by the purchase
price.

You will be disappointed to learn that may electronic devices (e.g. Mobile
phones) contains exactly the same hardware and firmware across certain model
range with some functions disabled in order to allow the
manufacturer/service providers to differentiate and sell the devices at
different price points.

There is no law to say that cost of manufacturing has anything to do with
selling price.

SKY+
 

Clueless2 wrote:

The Sky+ box as sold is perfectly capable of recording. It requires no
extra software and no extra development (even though all digiboxes, in
common with many other bits of technology, do get free updates from
time to time : so why not the Sky+?). Any costs involved in getting it
to record at the point of sale are, of course, covered by the purchase
price.

You will be disappointed to learn that may electronic devices (e.g. Mobile
phones) contains exactly the same hardware and firmware across certain model
range with some functions disabled in order to allow the
manufacturer/service providers to differentiate and sell the devices at
different price points.

And precisely what does this have to do with video recorders requiring
a monthly payment to be allowed to record?

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

SKY+
 

Clueless2 wrote:

No, this isn't the case. If the Sky+ could *output* two things at a
time there would be a tenuous reason for charging extra for it.

Outputing two things at the same time is YOUR requirement only and for this
Sky multiroom would meet this requirement alone.

As for me, I cannot watch two programmes at the same time, therefore being
able to watch one programme while I can record another is an additional
service beyond the normal Sky service/subscription. As I said in my post, I
am not entirely happy paying extra for this, but I do reconise that I am
benifitting an extra service over and above the normal Sky service which my
neighbour pays for. Therefore one could argue that it is only fair that user
of this extra service pays an extra subscription for it.

It isn't fair at all.

Why do you have to pay the same sum to record just one programme at a
time?

For a long time the Sky+ couldn't record two things at once. It still
cost the same per month.

Why would you need to record two things at the same time anyway when
nearly all pay broadcasts are repeated endlessly? I suspect that only
very rarely do Sky+ units get used to record two things at once.


Put it another way if you went to the cinema and paid a fee to watch one
film, how would you feel if your neighbour went to the same cinema, pays the
same fee but gets to watch two films instead of one? This is in effect what
Sky+ is offering, I can watch one sporting event live (say tennis) while I
am recording another sporting event (say golf) from another channel, even
though I will have to watch the golf (timeshifted) later.

The vast bulk of pay TV is not live. I will happily forego the
privilege of being able to record two live pay broadcasts in return
for not paying the £10 fee.

And why should one have to pay Sky a fee in order to record non-pay
non-Sky channels: the very channels that are most likely to show live
broadcasts.


Also if your argument is correct why should Sky charge £10 for
allowing people to record two non-Sky non-pay channels?
And why do they anything to allow people to record just one channel?

Don't know - maybe the PVR side of th equipment is all or nothing? But why
does this matter as Sky does not wish to (or cannot) offer this service.

It matters because it does. Surely this is obvious?


You don't need any sort of subscription to use a Sky+ to watch non-pay
channels (and indeed I haven't had a Sky sub for 10 years) and there
is no reason why you should have to pay Sky a sub in order to record
those same channels either.

So don't. No one is forcing you to. The Sky+ has been clearly published by
Sky and AFAIK it hasn't changed for a very long time.

Good grief.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)