SKY+

At 11:39:26 on 06/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"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'

That's one option, certainly. They've freely chosen not to do so, and
their customers are able to freely choose a different service provider
or PVR.

At 11:36:00 on 06/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"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.

Those who pay it obviously feel that the service justifies the fee.

At 11:28:47 on 06/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"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

Perhaps Sky have to pay a fee to the content provider.

Jomtien wrote:

that's simple: The service has been improved without an additional
charge. Would you be happier if the Sky increased the fee after
improving the service?

My word, now there's a backwards argument! There is no justification
for any fee at all.

What makes you think a service provider needs a justification for it's
offers? Take it or leave it. UK has a free market, hasn't it?

So what's this nonsense-talk about "justification"?

No, it's how free market works: supply and demand. As long as there are
people willing to buy at a certain price, this price is "valid".

There can be no free market with a monopoly product. This is why these
are banned in all free market economies.

So UK doesn't have a free market economy? What's holding other companies
back from offering a similar service?

Think of
it as your PC: Just because you bought a piece of hardware that is
capable of displaying web sites that doesn't mean that you bought the
internet access itself. You still have to pay a monthly fee for your
internet service.

That equates to programme content. You do NOT have to pay a monthly
fee to use your PC or the software in it.

Maybe not monthly but some of the programmes I use requiere ongoing
licence or service fees.


--
Gruß,
Jörn

"Alex" wrote in message
...

For example, compare DTT PVRs and show me why the Sky+ fee is
justified as a "service", when no DTT PVR charges one.

Those who pay it obviously feel that the service justifies the fee.

No - those who pay it may have little alternative, and pay it begrudgingly.
Not because they feel it is justified.

For example my only access to digital TV is sky. I cannot get DTT or cable.
My analog signal is weak on C4/5.
Many others will be in the same position.
So if they want a digital PVR they have little choice but to pay for Sky+,
or more commonly use an external recorder of course (but that isn't the
options we are discussing or so I understood)


Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...

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???
Perhaps Sky have to pay a fee to the content provider.

But they don't.

And if they did, then they wouldn't be so quick to waive that fee to premium
subscribers as they would still incur the cost of paying the content
provider.

Stop clutching at straws. Accept there is no real justification for Sky+
fee.
I accept that its "just the way it is". I don't like it, I can't see a
justification for it, but I accept Sky can choose to levy it if they wish,
and I can choose not to use it. It's "just the way it is".
Why can't you and others do the same instead of having to defend it and try
to concoct some justification for it all the time as if you worked for Sky?
Sky never try to justify it. Why should you?

Loz

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
So what's this nonsense-talk about "justification"?

I don't know, but you have certainly tried to come up with several reasons
to justify it.

Loz

At 12:04:10 on 06/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

For example, compare DTT PVRs and show me why the Sky+ fee is
justified as a "service", when no DTT PVR charges one.

Those who pay it obviously feel that the service justifies the fee.

No - those who pay it may have little alternative, and pay it
begrudgingly. Not because they feel it is justified.

Who's forcing them?

For example my only access to digital TV is sky. I cannot get DTT or
cable. My analog signal is weak on C4/5. Many others will be in the
same position. So if they want a digital PVR they have little choice
but to pay for Sky+, or more commonly use an external recorder of
course (but that isn't the options we are discussing or so I
understood)

Apparently, the only advantage of Sky+ is that it's simple to use (just
select a program and hit 'record'). So the alternative is to set
autoview on the applicable program and program the PVR to record it.
Those who pay for Sky+ obviously feel that being able to select a
program and hit 'record' justifies the fee, otherwise they wouldn't pay
it.

At 12:12:03 on 06/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

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???
Perhaps Sky have to pay a fee to the content provider.

But they don't.

Well since you have inside access to Sky's contracts with their content
providers, you presumably also know exactly why they charge for Sky+.
Perhaps you could enlighten us all instead of just moaning about it.

At 11:41:12 on 06/09/2006, Joern Bredereck delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

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.

That's nonsense. You can 'legally' record whether or not you pay Sky.

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.

You don't seem to know just what 'illegal' means.

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.

Can you please cite the relevant legislation for us?