|
|
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:47:57 +0100, PeeGee
wrote: For your £399 you get a Sky HD box which gives you the equivalent of a single tuner SD receiver - no PVR and no HD functions. No. Without subscription you still get the free HD channels. (BBC HD, Channel 4 HD, Luxe.TV HD) -- |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:47:56 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote: Freesat is just a rebranding excercise for UK SAT FTA. And a backwards step at that considering that it stops you watching all those nasty other FTA channels which aren't owned or controlled by the BBC and ITV.. -- |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
|
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:34:21 GMT, (Zero Tolerance) wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:06:00 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote: Except that on Freesat the drive's recording capacity is doubled. Impossible. The receivers are recording the exact same bitstreams so they'll take up the exact same amount of space. It's probably a reference to the fact that for the 160GB Sky+ PVR & 300GB Sky HD PVR half of the drive capacity is reserved for Sky use & thus unavailable for a user's recordings. They shouldn't be allowed to do this IMO, if the user disables Anytime function the disk space should be freed up for own use. -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message ... jb wrote: : : Noone pays ?399 for SkyHD! Why would you want a one unless you had Sky TV : (any level at all - ?16/month and up)?? : hang on ?399 is a) the price quoted on skys current website and b) the : cheap price.. because if you take the subscription route which you suggest You are not reading what I said! The SkyHD STB is no longer attractive to non-Sky subscribers as it won't do its PVR functionality without an extra payment. Yes they *will* sell it to you for £399 - but why would you want it when you could buy it from eBay from between £150 and £250! : ive just taken an glance at their HD subscription packages and even the : 'cheap' ones without phone or broadband are very roughly a staggering fifty : quid or so a month.. i can hardly beieve how dear their packages im a : millionaire and even i couldnt affords that !! You are not reading it correctly then! I pay £34/month which includes 4-Mix Sky (£19), £10 HD charges for an *extra* 9 HD channels which will never be on Freesat and £5 for 8-Meg Broadband. I get the PVR (Sky+) features of the SkyHD box thrown in. hmm.. just out of interest perhapse you might wish to give us some idea of your sky upload and download speeds .. i just posted details of a good site where you can easilly check your upload and download speeds.. also i was wondering if you have a giabyte per month download limit at all? in reply to the above.. its all about choice isnt it - and the more choice there is the better for the consumer surely.. more competitiion will lead to more competitive practices and far more competitive prices for everyone ... i see a golden era of television dawning with choice at the heart of these changes- the likes of which weve never even dreamed of before... cheers jb The £10 for extra HD channels is optional - for the last year I just had BBCHD, C4HD (and Luxe TV) |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"John Russell" wrote in message ... "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:59:05 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath wrote: jb wrote: : : Noone pays ?399 for SkyHD! Why would you want a one unless you had Sky TV : (any level at all - ?16/month and up)?? : hang on ?399 is a) the price quoted on skys current website and b) the : cheap price.. because if you take the subscription route which you suggest You are not reading what I said! The SkyHD STB is no longer attractive to non-Sky subscribers as it won't do its PVR functionality without an extra payment. Yes they *will* sell it to you for £399 - but why would you want it when you could buy it from eBay from between £150 and £250! : ive just taken an glance at their HD subscription packages and even the : 'cheap' ones without phone or broadband are very roughly a staggering fifty : quid or so a month.. i can hardly beieve how dear their packages im a : millionaire and even i couldnt affords that !! You are not reading it correctly then! I pay £34/month which includes 4-Mix Sky (£19), £10 HD charges for an *extra* 9 HD channels which will never be on Freesat and £5 for 8-Meg Broadband. I get the PVR (Sky+) features of the SkyHD box thrown in. The £10 for extra HD channels is optional - for the last year I just had BBCHD, C4HD (and Luxe TV) The price for all 16 HD channels is 55 pounds per month (6 Entertainment Mixes, Sports & Movie Mix + HD subscription) -- Are you implying those channels would cost nothing from SKY in SD? The fact is there is no such thing as a free lunch. The BBC has to fund it's sat services form some where. Some pundits are asking where that money is coming from, and if it's fair to the majoity of BBC users for the Licence Fee to be used to fund them. please forgive me if im wandering a bit off topic but i honestly cant see any point in freeview now that a much better service has emerged for the general public perhapse im out of touch but i can actually imagine a situation in a couple of years where freeview is abandoned befor its even rolled out.. the jist of my point is that surely a single satellite beam is far more ecconomical than developing running managing and maitaining hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of freeview terestrial transmission and sub transmission stations! Especially if the dsatellite beanm is here to stay regardles of how it all pans out (eg theyre surely not going to pull say the bbc from 28.5 come what may). cheers jb |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 May 2008 01:20:19 +0100, "jb" wrote: ive just taken an glance at their HD subscription packages and even the 'cheap' ones without phone or broadband are very roughly a staggering fifty quid or so a month.. i can hardly beieve how dear their packages im a millionaire and even i couldnt affords that !! All subscription packages INCLUDE phone and broadband, so I'm not sure what you're looking at. i was reading the following: http://sky.com/hd/join-sky-hd.htm Sky subscription packges including HD, PVR, phone and broadband start at at £26 per month. That's if you want to pay - if not, there's a perfectly good free service too. -- |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Brian W" wrote in message ... "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:34:21 GMT, (Zero Tolerance) wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:06:00 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote: Except that on Freesat the drive's recording capacity is doubled. Impossible. The receivers are recording the exact same bitstreams so they'll take up the exact same amount of space. It's probably a reference to the fact that for the 160GB Sky+ PVR & 300GB Sky HD PVR half of the drive capacity is reserved for Sky use & thus unavailable for a user's recordings. They shouldn't be allowed to do this IMO, if the user disables Anytime function the disk space should be freed up for own use. -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur Sky is "the user". The customer is merely the mug who pays them. |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:30:21 +0200, Nigel Barker
wrote: It's probably a reference to the fact that for the 160GB Sky+ PVR & 300GB Sky HD PVR half of the drive capacity is reserved for Sky use & thus unavailable for a user's recordings. Well that's just silly - no Sky box is marketed on Gb capacity, only ever on storage time. The regular Sky+ box is 40 hours (80gb), the Sky+HD is 80 hours SD/20 hours HD (160gb). If Sky choose to put extra disc space into the boxes for their own use then that's up to them, but that's not advertised or sold as "your" disc space so there should be no expectation of being able to use it. -- |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
|
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
In article ,
Nigel Barker wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:34:21 GMT, (Zero Tolerance) wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:06:00 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote: Except that on Freesat the drive's recording capacity is doubled. Impossible. The receivers are recording the exact same bitstreams so they'll take up the exact same amount of space. It's probably a reference to the fact that for the 160GB Sky+ PVR & 300GB Sky HD PVR half of the drive capacity is reserved for Sky use & thus unavailable for a user's recordings. Thankyou Nigel, at last a knowledgeable reply! :) Tennant -- ____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ (_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family )( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours (__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @orpheus.co.uk & MCR |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
In article , "Light of Aria"
wrote: "Brian W" wrote in message ... "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:34:21 GMT, (Zero Tolerance) wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:06:00 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote: Except that on Freesat the drive's recording capacity is doubled. Impossible. The receivers are recording the exact same bitstreams so they'll take up the exact same amount of space. It's probably a reference to the fact that for the 160GB Sky+ PVR & 300GB Sky HD PVR half of the drive capacity is reserved for Sky use & thus unavailable for a user's recordings. They shouldn't be allowed to do this IMO, if the user disables Anytime function the disk space should be freed up for own use. Sky is "the user". The customer is merely the mug who pays them. Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat. Tennant Stuart -- ____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ (_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family )( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours (__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @orpheus.co.uk & MCR |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
In article ,
Brian McIlwrath wrote: In uk.media.tv.sky Tennant Stuart wrote: Except that on Freesat the drive's recording capacity is doubled. Is that announced? Doesn't have to be; you'll get 100% instead of the 50% under Sky. And without having to licence the Sky EPG it will be cheaper too. I think that there is a similar lience to use the Freesat EPG as well. It certainly is *NOT* available without signing up to some pretty stringent conditions!!! Not denying that, it's still cheaper. Tennant -- ____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ (_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family )( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours (__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @orpheus.co.uk & MCR |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message ... In article , "Light of Aria" wrote: "Brian W" wrote in message ... "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:34:21 GMT, (Zero Tolerance) wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:06:00 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote: Except that on Freesat the drive's recording capacity is doubled. Impossible. The receivers are recording the exact same bitstreams so they'll take up the exact same amount of space. It's probably a reference to the fact that for the 160GB Sky+ PVR & 300GB Sky HD PVR half of the drive capacity is reserved for Sky use & thus unavailable for a user's recordings. They shouldn't be allowed to do this IMO, if the user disables Anytime function the disk space should be freed up for own use. 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. The main channels are now drivel how ever they are delivered. Those paying for SKY do so because the like what they get. The BBC are given a huge subsidy to deliver what they think we want. We can't say we don't want it by not getting the licence fee. In fact we need the licence even if most of programs we might watch are not from the BBC, but SKY. |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
|
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
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. Tennant -- ____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ (_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family )( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours (__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @orpheus.co.uk & MCR |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message
... No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch. Why? Has he harmed you in some way? Ian |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:05:00 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:
In article , (Zero Tolerance) wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:30:21 +0200, Nigel Barker wrote: It's probably a reference to the fact that for the 160GB Sky+ PVR & 300GB Sky HD PVR half of the drive capacity is reserved for Sky use & thus unavailable for a user's recordings. Well that's just silly - no Sky box is marketed on Gb capacity, only ever on storage time. The regular Sky+ box is 40 hours (80gb), the Sky+HD is 80 hours SD/20 hours HD (160gb). If Sky choose to put extra disc space into the boxes for their own use then that's up to them, but that's not advertised or sold as "your" disc space so there should be no expectation of being able to use it. 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. Tennant Stuart On Sky+ digiboxes if you don't subscribe then none of the disk is available to you. -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"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. |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell" wrote:
"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message k... 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 so when the Freesat PVRs are available there will be another big advantage for Freesat. -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: "Tennant Stuart" wrote in message . uk... 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 so when the Freesat PVRs are available there will be another big advantage for Freesat. Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content. Getting the main channels in HD via Sat doesn't improve the content. Most people getting SKY do so because they can see that the main channels are now full of dross and want something better. Content is King. Dross in HD or SD delivered by Cable,Sat or Aerial is still dross. |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:58:22 +0100, "John Russell" wrote:
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: "Tennant Stuart" wrote in message .uk... 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 so when the Freesat PVRs are available there will be another big advantage for Freesat. Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content. Getting the main channels in HD via Sat doesn't improve the content. Most people getting SKY do so because they can see that the main channels are now full of dross and want something better. Content is King. Dross in HD or SD delivered by Cable,Sat or Aerial is still dross. Plasma & LCD HDTVs are selling in their millions. If you have just spent 1000-1500 pounds on a large flat screen HDTV another 150 pounds to actually have some excellent free HD content is a very good deal. -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"John Russell" wrote in message ... Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content. not neccesarily. you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions. -- Gareth. That fly, is your magic wand..... |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:10:46 +0200, Nigel Barker
wrote: You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without paying a subscription Yes you can. You just have to use something like a DVD recorder, offboard PVR, or maybe even a video recorder, just like millions of people do every day. -- |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
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. -- |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
In uk.media.tv.sky Nigel Barker wrote:
: Plasma & LCD HDTVs are selling in their millions. If you have just spent : 1000-1500 pounds on a large flat screen HDTV another 150 pounds to : actually have some excellent free HD content is a very : good deal. Could you please stop posting replies with lines longer than 80 cols! It make it very messy on non-MS newsreaders. Anyway - anyone who has spent "THAT* much on a TV is FAR more likely to decide that the (VERY limited!) HD on Freesat is much inferior to that available on Sky (and no quoting Sky's maximum charges as "typical" this time please!) |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message ... 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. -- After all you would expect a device coming out now to take advantage of lower price higher capacity drives. It's a shame that SKY can't do the same. I see no reason to make a big thing of the SKY+ 160 just because it has a larger drive. The size of drive should be up to the user. |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... "John Russell" wrote in message ... Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content. not neccesarily. you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions. And how many of those did so to only watch Freeview? I bet many went to SKY users who wanted to watch footy on a large screen. You sure as hell don't want to watch BBC/ITV footy on a large screen it's atrocious. Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today! |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell" wrote:
"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... "John Russell" wrote in message ... Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content. not neccesarily. you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions. And how many of those did so to only watch Freeview? I bet many went to SKY users who wanted to watch footy on a large screen. You sure as hell don't want to watch BBC/ITV footy on a large screen it's atrocious. Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today! Why not watch it for free on BBC HD? -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
How Will Sky Respond to Freesat
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: "The dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... "John Russell" wrote in message ... Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content. not neccesarily. you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions. And how many of those did so to only watch Freeview? I bet many went to SKY users who wanted to watch footy on a large screen. You sure as hell don't want to watch BBC/ITV footy on a large screen it's atrocious. Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today! Why not watch it for free on BBC HD? I was thinking of those poor sods stuck with their Freeview SD tuner. I have the choice of watching in HD via BBC or SKY! |
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
|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com