How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:


"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Russell" wrote:

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message
...
In article , "Light of Aria"
wrote:

Sky is "the user".

The customer is merely the mug who pays them.

Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.

What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
have subscription services? Content is King.

No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.

Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with
Freeview upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of
the technology but because of the content. The only reason to get
Freesat is if you don't want subscription TV and can't get Freeview.
The idea of getting it to shaft SKY won't cross the mind of many
people.

Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over
Freeview. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
paying a subscription

Er...not true. I record from my Sky Digital box via a DVD-Recorder to a
blank DVD-R easily enough. And with blank DVD-R's available everywhere,
I have unlimited disc space. Unfortunately, there' not much stuff that I
record that I want to keep for long, what with adverts and DOG's etc...

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:26:36 +0100, "Stephen O'Connell" wrote:

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:


"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Russell" wrote:

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message
...
In article , "Light of Aria"
wrote:

Sky is "the user".

The customer is merely the mug who pays them.

Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.

What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
have subscription services? Content is King.

No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.

Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with
Freeview upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of
the technology but because of the content. The only reason to get
Freesat is if you don't want subscription TV and can't get Freeview.
The idea of getting it to shaft SKY won't cross the mind of many
people.

Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over
Freeview. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
paying a subscription

Er...not true. I record from my Sky Digital box via a DVD-Recorder to a
blank DVD-R easily enough. And with blank DVD-R's available everywhere,
I have unlimited disc space. Unfortunately, there' not much stuff that I
record that I want to keep for long, what with adverts and DOG's etc...

Let's re-phrase that more precisely then. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
paying a subscription or suffering a loss in quality or convenience.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:26:36 +0100, "Stephen O'Connell" wrote:

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Russell" wrote:

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message
...
In article , "Light of Aria"
wrote:
Sky is "the user".
The customer is merely the mug who pays them.
Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.
What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
have subscription services? Content is King.
No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.
Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with
Freeview upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of
the technology but because of the content. The only reason to get
Freesat is if you don't want subscription TV and can't get Freeview.
The idea of getting it to shaft SKY won't cross the mind of many
people.
Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over
Freeview. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
paying a subscription
Er...not true. I record from my Sky Digital box via a DVD-Recorder to a
blank DVD-R easily enough. And with blank DVD-R's available everywhere,
I have unlimited disc space. Unfortunately, there' not much stuff that I
record that I want to keep for long, what with adverts and DOG's etc...

Let's re-phrase that more precisely then. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
paying a subscription or suffering a loss in quality or convenience.

Let's rephrase that ;-) You cannot record any channels using a SKY + or
HD box .......

In addition, it could be said that you cannot record using only a SKY
digibox :-)

--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

"Shak" wrote in message
...
"jb" wrote in message
...

What will Sky do to keep its hundreds of pounds a year - nine million
customer base - continuing to cough up loads of money for stuff the BBC
and ITV are now giving away completely free!

Obvious.

Murdoch will do a rag report on the MD of the company stating he had nazi
style sex romps (like he did with Max because he would'nt give him F1 rights
for $ky)

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

In article ,
(Zero Tolerance) wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:05:00 BST, Tennant Stuart
wrote:

No, it's you who is being silly. When the whole drive can be used for
your own recordings, instead of just half, the capacity is doubled.

"I looked at this cat twice, therefore there are two cats".

You get the capacity that is advertised and that you pay for.
If there is additonal unadvertised capacity available, that does
not automatically make it yours.

Except we're talking about Thompson's plan to market the device.


Tennant

--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @orpheus.co.uk & MCR

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell" wrote:
Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today!

Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?

Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.


--

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell" wrote:
Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today!
Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?

Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.

Compression artefacts, or poor set up of the cameras ? I assume the match
coverage was different on each channel ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:
Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today!
Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?

Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.

Compression artefacts, or poor set up of the cameras ? I assume the match
coverage was different on each channel ?

It would have been a shared feed supplied by either the BBC or SKY.

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

John Russell wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:
Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today!
Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?
Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.
Compression artefacts, or poor set up of the cameras ? I assume the match
coverage was different on each channel ?

It would have been a shared feed supplied by either the BBC or SKY.

Not always no. One organisation would have been the 'Host Broadcaster'
providing an international clean feed, in this case probably the Beeb.
I expect Sky did their own match coverage ?

In the days BBC and ITV covered the FA Cup Final, both organisations covered
the match separately, except for the camera covering HRH presenting the cup
etc, that was shared.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
John Russell wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:
Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today!
Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?
Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.
Compression artefacts, or poor set up of the cameras ? I assume the
match coverage was different on each channel ?

It would have been a shared feed supplied by either the BBC or SKY.

Not always no. One organisation would have been the 'Host Broadcaster'
providing an international clean feed, in this case probably the Beeb.
I expect Sky did their own match coverage ?

In the days BBC and ITV covered the FA Cup Final, both organisations
covered the match separately, except for the camera covering HRH
presenting the cup etc, that was shared.

Form what I could see most camera shots where shared. Clearly the BBC and
SKY had it's own OB unit selecting the broadcast shot from the shared camera
feeds and their own feeds from the stadium studios and field side
interviewers. Which channel was then supplying the "international" viewers I
cannot say. ITV/BBC usually lose quality in the means they use to connect
the OB to base. With separate OB units for each company there is still room
for this to happen even with shared camera feeds.