Older Sky+ box provided for new install

John Russell wrote:
"John Russell" wrote in message
...

You miss my point. I understand that technically the services are
delivered
in a different way, and as a result they can scale to different
capacities.
Sky's service is limited, and will have to remain limited. However, it's
exactly the same service (albeit with limited choice)
as Virgin's service --
you can watch what you want (from a selection of available
programmes), when you want.


Limited choice is the crux. You could argue that the normal service
is VOD if you accept your choice is limited to what they want to
broadcasts at the time they chose!


....also the SKY+ function allows me to record programs I want to
watch which can then be watched when I want, but that isn't what most
people call VOD either. What SKY is proposing is Forced Recording of
programs I "may" want to watch, restricting the available space on
the hard drive for what I "do" want to watch. It's nothing more than
an exercise in appearing "competitive" so that people like you can
think they have VOD when they don't!

I totally agree. What Sky is offering is certainly not VOD. David's logic is
flawed.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:14:07 +0000, Edster wrote:

The difference being that Sky's offering will be from live/broadcast
TV, complete with ad breaks, writing all over the screen, and
banners/shoutovers telling you about programmes coming next that you
have already missed.

You seem to know an awful lot about a service that hasn't launched.
I'd lay money that you're talking out of your backside. Again.

--

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:50:41 -0000, "John Russell"
wrote:

With SKY you have to take responsibility. Their are stories of people who
bought the Thomson 160 having it replaced with a cheap 40GB one when it went
faulty.

Those are either very stupid or very confused people.

--

"Michael" wrote in message
...
"John Russell" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
...
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

With SKY you have to take responsibility. Their are stories of people
who bought the Thomson 160 having it replaced with a cheap 40GB one when
it went faulty.

How much more responsible should I have been? I asked Sky what box I was
going to get and they said they couldn't tell until the installer showed
up at my door with it.

When I ordered mine I insisted that I got a PVR3. I told them on the phone
(and I also remembered to take the name of whom I speak to) that if it would
NOT a PVR3 I would I would cancel my contract. Needless to say a note was
made on my install docket and a nice man with a PVR3 under his arm turned up
a few days later and he was allowed into my home to install it.

MC

On 2007-03-09, DannyT wrote:
John Russell wrote:
"John Russell" wrote in message
...

You miss my point. I understand that technically the services are
delivered
in a different way, and as a result they can scale to different
capacities.
Sky's service is limited, and will have to remain limited. However, it's
exactly the same service (albeit with limited choice)
as Virgin's service --
you can watch what you want (from a selection of available
programmes), when you want.


Limited choice is the crux. You could argue that the normal service
is VOD if you accept your choice is limited to what they want to
broadcasts at the time they chose!


....also the SKY+ function allows me to record programs I want to
watch which can then be watched when I want, but that isn't what most
people call VOD either. What SKY is proposing is Forced Recording of
programs I "may" want to watch, restricting the available space on
the hard drive for what I "do" want to watch. It's nothing more than
an exercise in appearing "competitive" so that people like you can
think they have VOD when they don't!

I totally agree. What Sky is offering is certainly not VOD. David's logic is
flawed.

In what way?

What is the _functional_ difference between what Sky are offering and
VOD?

Note that for any VOD service there will be equipment at each end,
how it works is immaterial.

--
David Taylor

On 2007-03-10, Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

What is the _functional_ difference between what Sky are offering and
VOD?

The difference is the size of the library of programmes available to be
viewed.

With cable or Internet VOD, you're only limited by the amount of
storage at the provider. With Sky's system, it's limited by the size of
the reserved partition on your Sky+ box.

Yes, I said all that in my original posts on the service.

It _is_ a VOD service. A VOD service with limited choice certainly,
but it is still Video On Demand.

--
David Taylor

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

What is the _functional_ difference between what Sky are offering and
VOD?

The difference is the size of the library of programmes available to be
viewed.

With cable or Internet VOD, you're only limited by the amount of
storage at the provider. With Sky's system, it's limited by the size of
the reserved partition on your Sky+ box.



Incorrect. With cable or Internet you are limited by what they decide to
make available.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tumbleweed wrote:

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

What is the _functional_ difference between what Sky are offering and
VOD?

The difference is the size of the library of programmes available to be
viewed.

With cable or Internet VOD, you're only limited by the amount of
storage at the provider. With Sky's system, it's limited by the size of
the reserved partition on your Sky+ box.

Incorrect. With cable or Internet you are limited by what they decide to
make available.

Non sequitur. I said nothing about who chooses the content that's
available. Do you think you will have any more choice with Sky?


No, less of course.

But you said "With cable or Internet VOD, you're only limited by the amount
of
storage at the provider".

And thats not true. That was my point, nothing else.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

On 2007-03-12, Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tumbleweed wrote:

But you said "With cable or Internet VOD, you're only limited by the
amount of storage at the provider".

And thats not true. That was my point, nothing else.

In what way is it not true?

The limit is NOT "the amount of storage at the provider". The limit
is "the content the provider CHOOSES to make available".

I have no reason to believe that the choice
of programmes available will be limited to what can be squeezed into a
single 80GB partition. Should the VOD provider wish to double the
amount of content available, they can do so without supplying new
equipment to the subscriber.

Yes. If they wish to pay for the storage AND THE RIGHTS to the content.

Now, Virgin/NTL's end user equipment leaves a lot to be desired. eg.
You put it on one channel before going to bed, and in the morning the
display says it's still on that channel, but what you're viewing is a
totally different channel. The box crashes and freezes regularly. If
the TV service wasn't free now, I'd have cancelled it. The phone
service has been reliable for the last 10 years. (It was NYNEX when it
was installed.)

As I said, Sky's service will offer a service to the user which is
functionally identical to Virgin/NTL's, there will just be less choice.

--
David Taylor

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
On 2007-03-09, DannyT wrote:
John Russell wrote:
"John Russell" wrote in message
...

You miss my point. I understand that technically the services are
delivered
in a different way, and as a result they can scale to different
capacities.
Sky's service is limited, and will have to remain limited. However,
it's
exactly the same service (albeit with limited choice)
as Virgin's service --
you can watch what you want (from a selection of available
programmes), when you want.


Limited choice is the crux. You could argue that the normal service
is VOD if you accept your choice is limited to what they want to
broadcasts at the time they chose!


....also the SKY+ function allows me to record programs I want to
watch which can then be watched when I want, but that isn't what most
people call VOD either. What SKY is proposing is Forced Recording of
programs I "may" want to watch, restricting the available space on
the hard drive for what I "do" want to watch. It's nothing more than
an exercise in appearing "competitive" so that people like you can
think they have VOD when they don't!

I totally agree. What Sky is offering is certainly not VOD. David's logic
is
flawed.

In what way?

What is the _functional_ difference between what Sky are offering and
VOD?

Note that for any VOD service there will be equipment at each end,
how it works is immaterial.

VOD which is nothing more than "Forced Recording" is miss-selling. The
fundemental aspect of VOD is that the user is in control of the programs he
wants the broadcaster to supply to him, unlike broadcasting where the
supplier decides what "everyone" will get. The user has no control over the
progrems sent to the disk, so this isn't VOD. If you don't like the idea
"Forced Recoding" let's call it "Buffered Broadcasting", but VOD it isn't!