SKY+

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 17:54:33 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

New Tivo's suitable for use in the UK are "easily available"?
Where?

I came across one website just recently which had a substantial
number, purchased as end-of-line stock from a distributor. Of course I
can't remember the web address now...

--

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 17:55:54 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

DTT PVRs "could" make tea and wash the dishes.

No, on the whole that is unlikely to be possible.

Let's stick to comparing what they *do* do, not what they could

No, let's keep this as a fair and open argument, rather than trying to
fence off the parts of it which do not suit your position.

--

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:52:19 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

This is not an opinion it is a simple fact.

In order for a fee to be valid and acceptable there must be some
measure of service provision. The Sky+ fee has no measure of service
provision at all. It is a rip-off born from a monopoly. Pure and simple.

No, once again, I believe that is your "opinion". And opinion only.

--

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 19:37:17 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

You have to pay sky+ just to record FTA channels even if you don't have a
content subscription.

TBH you would have to be totally bonkers to pay a Sky+ subscription just to
record the FTA channels. You have a wide choice of FTA receivers with dual
tuners that will do the job just fine. Paying 10 pounds per month for Sky+ just
for the FTV channels (Channel 4, five & Sky Three) is a bit excessive.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
Let's stick to comparing what they *do* do, not what they could
No, let's keep this as a fair and open argument, rather than trying to
fence off the parts of it which do not suit your position.

I can't see the point in talking about things the PVRs could do, but don't
do.

All I am suggesting is that we only talk about the capabilities of existing
PVRs in the marketplace you can buy today.
Not some theoretical capability that may or may not exist in future.
That isn't fencing off parts of it which do not suit my position.

Loz

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 19:37:17 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

You have to pay sky+ just to record FTA channels even if you don't have a
content subscription.

TBH you would have to be totally bonkers to pay a Sky+ subscription just
to
record the FTA channels. You have a wide choice of FTA receivers with dual
tuners that will do the job just fine. Paying 10 pounds per month for Sky+
just
for the FTV channels (Channel 4, five & Sky Three) is a bit excessive.

and E4 and More 4

However, whilst you might be bonkers, I think it was more the principle that
was under discussion.
It was argued that because the Sky+ sub enabled you to watch one Sky Channel
whilst recording another it meant it was effectively worth 2 sky channel
subscriptions.
The point was made, that the Sky+ sub cannot be justified only on that basis
because it is required even to record FTA channels where no channel sub is
required.

Loz

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 19:37:17 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

You have to pay sky+ just to record FTA channels even if you don't have a
content subscription.

TBH you would have to be totally bonkers to pay a Sky+ subscription just
to
record the FTA channels. You have a wide choice of FTA receivers with dual
tuners that will do the job just fine. Paying 10 pounds per month for Sky+
just
for the FTV channels (Channel 4, five & Sky Three) is a bit excessive.


Depends where you live. Where I am, FTA reception ranges from poor to none.

--
Tumbleweed

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

"loz" wrote in message
...
I am just facinated why people keep trying to justify
the Sky+ subscription and other aspects of their service.
Personally, I would rather there were better options but I simply
recognise
that "that's the way it is", and currently choose to take it rather than
leave it."

I think you will find that there is a difference between justifying the Sky+
subscription and understanding how, why and accepting Sky charges for this
"additional service provided by Sky+".

Bottom line is if you truely believe that Sky+ doesn't offer any additional
services to the end user, then surely no one will buy it directly or
indirectly.

FYI, I also have Sky HD. Personally I don't think Sky can justify the
monthly HD sub either.

Here we go ... I sense another foolish arguement coming on about SkyHD. For
what it is worth Which Magazine did not recommend this serivce to their
readers. Oh I forgot, didn't some claimed that they were not so independent?

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
It's hard to imagine quite what else the Sky+ could do that wouldn't
infringe on Tivo patents. Indeed it would seem that what the Sky+ does
now may already infringe on Tivo patents.

Maybe you will be happier to pay an additional fee to use Sky+ when this
happens?

Zero Tolerance wrote:

No, the box as purchased contains everything needed to record. Sky
deliberately prevent it from doing so, and they charge you to stop
preventing it.

The box as purchased contains a hard disc which the Sky+ system may
use for its own internal purposes. If you wish to happen to want to
use that hard disc for YOUR own purposes, there is a charge. And you
buy (or choose not to buy) the Sky+ hardware in the full knowledge of
this. What's the problem?

The problem is that this is one of the biggest loads of nonsense I
have ever heard. When you buy a car does it just happens to contain a
motor that belongs to Ford and which they may want to use to power
other machines and which, from time to time, they may let you use if
you ask them nicely and if you slip them a tenner? My eye it does.

You buy the Sky+ complete, just as you do with any other recording
device. You need sign no contract. You should be able to use it to
perform its intended purpose without interference from anyone or
payment to anyone, just as you can with any other recording device.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)