SKY+

Jomtien wrote:

Right. So what? Being able to record is an service provided by Sky.

No, it isn't. It is a function of the box as purchased. There is
absolutely no measure of service involved.

Being technicaly able to do something and being allowed to do so by your
contract are two different things.

The content you wish to record is property of Sky. Sky may decide
whether you are allowed to record it or not. The question if you can do
it from technical point of view is irrelevant.

What
makes you think Sky wouldn't have the right to charge for their
services?

Because it isn't a service.

It's a modified contract; one with a certain restriction missing. It's
quiet normal that different contracts have different prices.

Saying that it's a ripp off to charge for this service is like saying
that it's a ripp off having to pay for a train ticket - after all the
train is going from station to station anyway - with or without you
riding on it. So the costs are the same, right? So why are they charging
for a ride in the train?

The train ride is indeed a service: the passenger has not previously
been required to buy the train and track.

For some services you need special equipment, for some services you
don't. That's the only difference between Sky and the train analogy.

But if it makes you happy here is another one: Why is your telphone
company charging you for telephone calls? You bought your phone and the
function to make calls is implemented already. The neccessary
infrastructure for connecting two phones exists already so isn't it a
ripp-off of the phone companies to actually charge for enabling you to
use your phone?

Would you be so happy to pay Philips every time you want to use your
VCR or washing machine?

Sky+ subscribers don't pay to the box manufacturer but to the service
provider (Sky).


--
Gruß,
Jörn

Jomtien 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.

Your phone as purchased contains everything needed to make phone calls.
Your phone company deliberately prevents it from doing so, and they
charge you to stop preventing it.


--
Gruß,
Jörn

"Alex" wrote in message
...
And so does every other Sky box decode the signal and use the EPG.

To control the recording?

So you are saying that a £10 monthly fee is justifiable soley on the basis
that it enables the scheduling of recording using the EPG that is itself
provided freely to all Sky boxes?

Whereas every DTT PVR out there provides the same EPG based scheduling of
recording for free...

Loz

Jomtien wrote:

One of the best examples would be Windows XP (Home/Professional). You
can turn any "XP Home" to "XP Professional" by changing some registry
keys but that would mean breaking the licencing contract with Microsoft.

Another urban myth. You are wrong.

What's is wrong about my statement above? That you break the licencing
contract? Are you serious?

--
Gruß,
Jörn

Jomtien wrote:

There is no element of service here. It is just a rip-off charge that
is possible because Sky have the monopoly of FTV sat recording
devices, and for that matter of devices that use the Sky EPG.

The Sky EPG is no service?




--
Gruß,
Jörn

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
The content you wish to record is property of Sky. Sky may decide
whether you are allowed to record it or not. The question if you can do
it from technical point of view is irrelevant.

No it most certainly is not.
The content is the property of the broadcaster.
Most of whom available via Sky are not owned by Sky.
Why should Sky levy a fee to record other broadcaster's content???
Why should Sky levy a fee to record FTA channels???

Loz

At 11:12:39 on 06/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
And so does every other Sky box decode the signal and use the EPG.

To control the recording?

So you are saying that a £10 monthly fee is justifiable soley on the
basis that it enables the scheduling of recording using the EPG that
is itself provided freely to all Sky boxes?

It's provided free for a particular purpose. Perhaps they decided to
charge for the additional purpose of linking it to a recorder. Perhaps
the fee helps to pay for such developments as remote recording (which
is, AFAIK, not available on 'every DTT PVR out there').

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
Jomtien 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.

Your phone as purchased contains everything needed to make phone calls.
Your phone company deliberately prevents it from doing so, and they
charge you to stop preventing it.

Stop talking in analogies. They quickly break down and the comparison is not
direct because there are some many differences.

Stick to comparing the provision of TV services and recording.

For example, compare DTT PVRs and show me why the Sky+ fee is justified as a
"service", when no DTT PVR charges one.
I asked you that before, and you couldn't answer.
So instead you talk about mobile phones which is totally irrelevant -
different product, different market.

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...
So you are saying that a £10 monthly fee is justifiable soley on the
basis that it enables the scheduling of recording using the EPG that
is itself provided freely to all Sky boxes?
It's provided free for a particular purpose. Perhaps they decided to
charge for the additional purpose of linking it to a recorder. Perhaps
the fee helps to pay for such developments as remote recording (which
is, AFAIK, not available on 'every DTT PVR out there').

Then charge for remote recording if that is different and justifiable
service.
But not the basic recording that is the same as 'every DTT PVR out there'

Loz

Jomtien wrote:

Many of the other PVRs use Linux based software which is licenced under
the GPL and therefore generate (close to) no costs for the box vendors
at all.

You really don't have a clue, do you? Very few such boxes use Linux.

Well, the good ones do:

http://www.dream-multimedia-tv.de/en...s_overview.php
http://www.reel-multimedia.com/engli...e/reelbox.html

Not to mention the good old dbox2 with the neutrino linux image.

Anyway in the case of Sky+ it's not the cost of the software sky charges
for. It's the service itself. How this service is being put into
action on the technical side is irrelevant in this matter.

There is no service involved, and more than there is with any
recording device. Which part of this don't you understand?

You don't understand that being able to record and being allowed to
record are two seperate things. The Sky+ Digibox enables you
*technicaly* to record and Sky enables you *legaly* to record IF you pay
for it. If you don't like the word "service charge" then call it
"licence fee", if you want. Your buying a licence to record with your
skybox. Which part of this don't you understand?

In fact there are Linux based PVRs which are perfectly capable of
receiving and recording Sky even without paying 10 Pound to Sky and the
possibility to simply FTP and burn the recorded movies.

Only because the CAM has been emulated. However this is a fair
comparison. Having bought your Dream box or whatever, do you then
expect to pay the manufacturer a monthly fee in order to record with
it? No? Why not? You say that it is justified for Sky to make such a
charge.

Yes, it is. Using the Dreambox is illegal just for this reason: You
don't have a licence to use it! And in order to *legaly* use your Sky
Digibox for recording you have to pay a licence fee, too.

Once again: Just becuase is possible form a technical point of view
doesn't mean that it's legal. The same applies for the Sky Digibox.

And why aren't the manufacturers of these other boxes all bankrupt?
Presumably they managed to develop the device and its operating system
and make a profit from selling them without needing a permanent extra
£10 per month.

Sky never manufactured one box. Sky is providing content and offer
different ways to use their content. Recording the content is one of the
offers that Sky makes. This costs 10 pounds.

The only catch:
it's illegal, bause the software (NDS-capable software-CAM such as
"NewCS") isn't licenced by NDS/Sky.

It is not illegal.

I doubt that. The CAM doesn't have any licence from NDS. Operating a CAM
without a proper licence is illegal.


--
Gruß,
Jörn