The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived

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

Exactly. The SKY+ is designed for those who want SKY channels. One minute
posters condemn SKY's kit for being crap, the next they can't find
anything
as good as the SKY+ elsewhere and blame SKY for that as well.

A pvr that wishes to access subscription based sky channels has to capture
the signal in an anolgue fashion. This increases manufacturing costs
massively, and reduces the picture quality, it also makes dual lnb feature
impossible.

This is the direct fault of sky, who prevent their box manufacturers from
accessing the cam with equipment that is not SKY+. An open cam (the
encryption is not at risk), would result in an avalaunch of tivo like
variants on the market, and not what is in essence a retarded sky+
interface.

Imagine xp media centre with cam access to sky and skyhd? It would give
incredible picture and flexibility.

Gaz

In article ,
says...

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 26 May 2007 23:23:09 +0100, Dom Robinson
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 26 May 2007 00:22:39 -0700, Ed wrote:

And as I said a while ago, the £10 fee is dropped for any sky package
from 1 July. It will remain for anyone with NO sky digital
subscription unfortunately, so basically a two mix package for £15 a
month is now the most financially sensible way to be able to use the
recording features of the box as at least you get some channels for
your money!

That may be Sky's marketing spin but it still looks like spending an
extra 5 pounds per month for
channels you didn't want in the first place.

Then why would you get a Sky+, or any PVR for that matter, if you hardly
watch
any TV?

I think that you miss my point. Sky charge 10 pounds per month to allow
your to use the recording
functions of the Sky+ to record FTA/FTV channels when you don't have a SKy
subscription. The
proposition was that it was better value to pay 15 pounds per month after
1st July & get 'free' Sky+
but get some subscription channels too. While better value for those who
currently pay 25 pounds per
month for that package it's still five pounds per month more than those
who currently are not
subscribing to any Sky digital channel package.
--

I figured that, but...

That's like buying a Ferrari and complaining about the running cost. If you
can only afford to run a Fiat UNO that's what you buy. If you don't want SKY
channels your stuck with lesser equipped box's from the FTV suppliers. SKY
are not responsible for the poor spec of the FTV box's.

Precisely. And there's a lot of casual watchers out there who'll just use
their VCRs anyway because A/V equipment isn't a priority and a standard Sky
box (with or without subscription) is the limit of what they'll do.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1132 DVDs, 347 games, 314 CDs, 110 cinema films, 42 concerts, videos & news
/* antibodies, steve hillage, burning crusade, sega psp, norah jones, kylie
New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DVDfeverDom

"Gaz" wrote in message
...
John Russell wrote:
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...

Exactly. The SKY+ is designed for those who want SKY channels. One minute
posters condemn SKY's kit for being crap, the next they can't find
anything
as good as the SKY+ elsewhere and blame SKY for that as well.

A pvr that wishes to access subscription based sky channels has to capture
the signal in an anolgue fashion. This increases manufacturing costs
massively, and reduces the picture quality, it also makes dual lnb feature
impossible.

This is the direct fault of sky, who prevent their box manufacturers from
accessing the cam with equipment that is not SKY+. An open cam (the
encryption is not at risk), would result in an avalaunch of tivo like
variants on the market, and not what is in essence a retarded sky+
interface.

Imagine xp media centre with cam access to sky and skyhd? It would give
incredible picture and flexibility.

Gaz


Sky contract the design of box's to their spec for use by SKY customers. SKY
are not in the business of producing box's for general use. SKY are not
responsible for the crap design of non SKY box's!

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:19:40 +0100, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

Yeeesss. My Topfield has a monthly fee of £0 and doesn't come with ****
channels.

Does your aerial not pick up "UKTV Bright Ideas" and all those
shopping channels, then?

--

At the moment the Big 5 are responsible for most of the crap on TV! Thank
god for sport on SKY!

John Russell wrote:

Sky contract the design of box's to their spec for use by SKY customers.
SKY
are not in the business of producing box's for general use. SKY are not
responsible for the crap design of non SKY box's!

Sky will not allow the use of their cam in non approved boxes, to keep a
tight reign on what will be the future pvr market. Sky+ is a truly awful
retarded product, which has had little innovation over the last few years,
using outdated technology and interface. It will not change, because it
doesnt have to, it is the only game in town, because nobody else has access
to the cam.

Gaz

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2007 16:58:31 -0700, wrote:

No channel 4 or 5 either

The receiver I linked to does have dual CI so you could use a couple of
Dragon/T.Rex CAMs with FTV
cards although that does push the price up a bit enough for a couple of
years subscription to Sky+
in fact.
--


Good point. I know someone who paid about £600 for a professionally fitted
motorised dish and all the trimmings so he could watch foreign football
feeds. £600 buys a lot of subs.

On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:39:15 +0100, Dom Robinson wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:59:15 +0100, "the dog from that film you saw"
wrote:


"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...

"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com...
And as I said a while ago, the £10 fee is dropped for any sky package
from 1 July. It will remain for anyone with NO sky digital
subscription unfortunately, so basically a two mix package for £15 a
month is now the most financially sensible way to be able to use the
recording features of the box as at least you get some channels for
your money!





Yeeesss. My Topfield has a monthly fee of £0 and doesn't come with ****
channels.





and doesnt receive satellite tv either - i didnt realise a cock waving
contest had started.

To be fair there are equivalent FTA digital satellite dual tuner PVRs that
can be bought for around
the same price e.g.
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...=14&doy=search
--

Exactly. The SKY+ is designed for those who want SKY channels. One minute
posters condemn SKY's kit for being crap, the next they can't find anything
as good as the SKY+ elsewhere and blame SKY for that as well.

TiVo - that's better than Sky+

Apart from the picture & sound quality of course.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:04 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:

John Russell wrote:

Sky contract the design of box's to their spec for use by SKY customers.
SKY
are not in the business of producing box's for general use. SKY are not
responsible for the crap design of non SKY box's!

Sky will not allow the use of their cam in non approved boxes, to keep a
tight reign on what will be the future pvr market. Sky+ is a truly awful
retarded product, which has had little innovation over the last few years,
using outdated technology and interface. It will not change, because it
doesnt have to, it is the only game in town, because nobody else has access
to the cam.

The User Interface for Sky & SKy+ has not changed since launch. It looks very old & clunky compared
to Vista Media Center for example. The UI for the Sky HD box is just the same. It's crazy as by
definition the user must have an HDTV so why is the UI designed for an SDTV?
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

John Russell wrote:
"Gaz" wrote in message
...
John Russell wrote:
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...

Exactly. The SKY+ is designed for those who want SKY channels. One
minute posters condemn SKY's kit for being crap, the next they
can't find anything
as good as the SKY+ elsewhere and blame SKY for that as well.

A pvr that wishes to access subscription based sky channels has to
capture the signal in an anolgue fashion. This increases
manufacturing costs massively, and reduces the picture quality, it
also makes dual lnb feature impossible.

This is the direct fault of sky, who prevent their box manufacturers
from accessing the cam with equipment that is not SKY+. An open cam
(the encryption is not at risk), would result in an avalaunch of
tivo like variants on the market, and not what is in essence a
retarded sky+ interface.

Imagine xp media centre with cam access to sky and skyhd? It would
give incredible picture and flexibility.

Gaz


Sky contract the design of box's to their spec for use by SKY
customers. SKY are not in the business of producing box's for general
use. SKY are not responsible for the crap design of non SKY box's!

You obviously love your apostrophes, but the plural of box is boxes.

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:58:55 GMT, "DannyT"
wrote:

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:59:15 +0100, "the dog from that film you saw"
wrote:


"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...

"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com...
And as I said a while ago, the £10 fee is dropped for any sky
package from 1 July. It will remain for anyone with NO sky digital
subscription unfortunately, so basically a two mix package for
£15 a month is now the most financially sensible way to be able
to use the recording features of the box as at least you get some
channels for your money!





Yeeesss. My Topfield has a monthly fee of £0 and doesn't come with
**** channels.





and doesnt receive satellite tv either - i didnt realise a cock
waving contest had started.

To be fair there are equivalent FTA digital satellite dual tuner
PVRs that can be bought for around the same price e.g.
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...=14&doy=search

What kind of epg would such a device have? If it's just 'now/next' it
wouldn't be much use to most people. Perhaps there's a way of using
it with a third party epg?

While the lack of an EPG is a bit of a drawback you should be able to
set up manual recordings by time & channel. This method was good
enough for us all to use for 20+ years with VCRs.

The best bet is to wait for the launch of the BBC's Freesat service
next year as the receivers will have a full EPG.

Excellent news! Will there be a PVR designed to work with it (without a
monthly fee)?