Sky +

I am an ex-subscriber to Sky and still have the dark blue Viewing Card
that enables me to see all the Free To View Channels on my old Digibox
(about a year old I think). I just purchased a Sky + Digibox and have
added most of the FTV channels, with the exception of Channels 4 and
5 (which may appear after a few days I understand). However, it seems
that I am prompted to insert a (current) viewing card in order to
record on Sky +.
I have also read somewhere that this facility is aavailable for £10
per month. Is this the only rememdy?
Thanks in advance for your responses.

Why did you get a SKY+ digibox for FTV?

SKY+ box's remain as single tuner devices unless activated by SKY. This is
not a problem for the vast majority of SKY+ users who are SKY subscribers.
Very few have ever paid the £10 becuase they have always had enough channels
to get SKY+ functionality for free.

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
In , "John Russell"
wrote:

Very few have ever paid the £10 becuase they have always had enough
channels
to get SKY+ functionality for free.

They didn't "always have the channels" at all. Some did, but a large
percentage of subscribers only upgraded their packages (from the
so-called "Family" pack) when the "fee waived if you have 2 premium
channels" offer started, because the price difference between upgrading
and continuing to pay the £10 fee was only 50p/£1/etc.

They'll be downgrading en masse not just back down to 6 Mixes, but 4 and
2 Mixes, now that the offer has changed to allow them to use their Sky+
box without paying a separate fee for it.

Without Sport or Films I see no reason to have subscription TV at all!

"John Russell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
In , "John Russell"
wrote:

Very few have ever paid the £10 becuase they have always had enough
channels
to get SKY+ functionality for free.

They didn't "always have the channels" at all. Some did, but a large
percentage of subscribers only upgraded their packages (from the
so-called "Family" pack) when the "fee waived if you have 2 premium
channels" offer started, because the price difference between upgrading
and continuing to pay the £10 fee was only 50p/£1/etc.

They'll be downgrading en masse not just back down to 6 Mixes, but 4 and
2 Mixes, now that the offer has changed to allow them to use their Sky+
box without paying a separate fee for it.

Without Sport or Films I see no reason to have subscription TV at all!

*shrug* sport is better down the pub and movies are better on DVD. I like
the base packs though - certain find plenty to entertain for the price.

Fgw3COn Tue, 29 May 2007 19:07:15 +0100, "John Russell" wrote:


Very few have ever paid the £10 becuase they have always had enough
channels
to get SKY+ functionality for free.

They didn't "always have the channels" at all. Some did, but a large
percentage of subscribers only upgraded their packages (from the
so-called "Family" pack) when the "fee waived if you have 2 premium
channels" offer started, because the price difference between upgrading
and continuing to pay the £10 fee was only 50p/£1/etc.

They'll be downgrading en masse not just back down to 6 Mixes, but 4 and
2 Mixes, now that the offer has changed to allow them to use their Sky+
box without paying a separate fee for it.

Without Sport or Films I see no reason to have subscription TV at all!

Eh? So the sky marketeers have it wrong when they proclaim "record a
whole series at the touch of a button?"

Sports and films are a rip off on sky. Many will agree, many perhaps
wont. But I doubt many people would agree sky+ is pointless without
sports and film subscription.

"John Russell" wrote in message
...



Without Sport or Films I see no reason to have subscription TV at all!

I like the MTV/Emap music channels, and there's some good stuff on the
Variety Mix. Film channels are pointless IMO as all the films are available
to rent/buy on DVD months before they're shown on TV. And I'm not interested
in sport either.

John Russell wrote:
"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
In , "John Russell"
wrote:

Very few have ever paid the £10 becuase they have always had enough
channels
to get SKY+ functionality for free.

They didn't "always have the channels" at all. Some did, but a large
percentage of subscribers only upgraded their packages (from the
so-called "Family" pack) when the "fee waived if you have 2 premium
channels" offer started, because the price difference between
upgrading and continuing to pay the £10 fee was only 50p/£1/etc.

They'll be downgrading en masse not just back down to 6 Mixes, but 4
and 2 Mixes, now that the offer has changed to allow them to use
their Sky+ box without paying a separate fee for it.

Without Sport or Films I see no reason to have subscription TV at
all!


Sports and Movies are a waste of money, I don't see the point of
subscribing to them at all.


--
60 day free DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
Mobile Offers: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/mob
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/230volt

In article , guv
writes
Fgw3COn Tue, 29 May 2007 19:07:15 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:


Very few have ever paid the £10 becuase they have always had enough
channels
to get SKY+ functionality for free.

They didn't "always have the channels" at all. Some did, but a large
percentage of subscribers only upgraded their packages (from the
so-called "Family" pack) when the "fee waived if you have 2 premium
channels" offer started, because the price difference between upgrading
and continuing to pay the £10 fee was only 50p/£1/etc.

They'll be downgrading en masse not just back down to 6 Mixes, but 4 and
2 Mixes, now that the offer has changed to allow them to use their Sky+
box without paying a separate fee for it.

Without Sport or Films I see no reason to have subscription TV at all!

Eh? So the sky marketeers have it wrong when they proclaim "record a
whole series at the touch of a button?"

Which only works, if said series doesn't miss a couple of weeks for
whatever reason.
--
Sean Black

"guv" wrote in message
...
Fgw3COn Tue, 29 May 2007 19:07:15 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:


Very few have ever paid the £10 becuase they have always had enough
channels
to get SKY+ functionality for free.

They didn't "always have the channels" at all. Some did, but a large
percentage of subscribers only upgraded their packages (from the
so-called "Family" pack) when the "fee waived if you have 2 premium
channels" offer started, because the price difference between upgrading
and continuing to pay the £10 fee was only 50p/£1/etc.

They'll be downgrading en masse not just back down to 6 Mixes, but 4 and
2 Mixes, now that the offer has changed to allow them to use their Sky+
box without paying a separate fee for it.

Without Sport or Films I see no reason to have subscription TV at all!

Eh? So the sky marketeers have it wrong when they proclaim "record a
whole series at the touch of a button?"

Sports and films are a rip off on sky. Many will agree, many perhaps
wont. But I doubt many people would agree sky+ is pointless without
sports and film subscription.

Is the channel mix without Film or Sport sufficiently better than Freeview
to justify paying for it?

On Thu, 31 May 2007 16:02:19 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:


Without Sport or Films I see no reason to have subscription TV at all!

Eh? So the sky marketeers have it wrong when they proclaim "record a
whole series at the touch of a button?"

Sports and films are a rip off on sky. Many will agree, many perhaps
wont. But I doubt many people would agree sky+ is pointless without
sports and film subscription.

Is the channel mix without Film or Sport sufficiently better than Freeview
to justify paying for it?

Thats all a matter for personal choice. For you clearly it isnt, for
the millions that do (especially for the 20% of the poulation that
cant receive freeview) it is. Sky one remains for me, the most watched
channel - purely because I like a lot of the program content. (eg SG1,
ST, Lost, 24 etc) After that, the kids love their mix of cartoons etc.
Maybe you dont have kids to want that part of the package?