SKY+

At 13:26:22 on 06/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
Why do Sky charge the Sky+ fee to record,
Because they're a service provider and are charging for the service.
when the DTT PVR or manufacturers do not?
Because they're manufacturers and do not have a service to charge
for.

Ok, so why does Sky not charge to record its channels on DTT?

Because they are not providing the service to record on DTT. They are
providing the service to record over their system, using their EPG, and
with the ability to enable that recording remotely.

If they are the service provider not the manufacturer surely they
would charge on DTT too. If it is justifiable on one manufacturers
platform surely it is justifiable on another's?

And why does Sky charge to record other broadcaster's channels on Sky?

They don't. They charge to record over their system, using the EPG
data. You can record any channel you have access to for free -
presuming you have any requisite subscription - without the EPG using
your favourite recording device.

If a Service Provider such as BBC chooses not to charge for recording
on DTT, why do Sky charge you to record it on Sky? It isn't their
channel or content or service. Sky doesn't provide BBCi.

They provide access to it over their network. You may quite freely
record it yourself using a recorder connected to your Sky box, or a
recorder connected to a DTV receiver. If you choose to record it over
the Sky network using the Sky EPG data then you must pay any applicable
fee to do so.

loz wrote:

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.

I came up with explanations, why there is no reason to wine about it. I
certainly never tried to justify anything.


--
Gruß,
Jörn

"Alex" wrote in message
...
But no grounds for complaint. It's a luxury, not a necessity.
Ah, the old "let them eat cake" ploy.
You can afford it, so screw everyone else heh?
If the alternative is that I subsidise 'everyone else' for what is not
a necessity, then yes.

The only thing you are subsidising in respect to the Sky+ fee is the the
champagne at the Sky shareholder's meeting.
You've got to have some bubbly at the shareholder's meeting :-)

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Ok, so why does Sky not charge to record its channels on DTT?

Because they are not providing the service to record on DTT. They are
providing the service to record over their system, using their EPG, and
with the ability to enable that recording remotely.

If they are the service provider not the manufacturer surely they
would charge on DTT too. If it is justifiable on one manufacturers
platform surely it is justifiable on another's?
And why does Sky charge to record other broadcaster's channels on Sky?
They don't. They charge to record over their system, using the EPG
data. You can record any channel you have access to for free -
presuming you have any requisite subscription - without the EPG using
your favourite recording device.
If a Service Provider such as BBC chooses not to charge for recording
on DTT, why do Sky charge you to record it on Sky? It isn't their
channel or content or service. Sky doesn't provide BBCi.
They provide access to it over their network. You may quite freely
record it yourself using a recorder connected to your Sky box, or a
recorder connected to a DTV receiver. If you choose to record it over
the Sky network using the Sky EPG data then you must pay any applicable
fee to do so.

So if I can freely do all this using other recorders, why do I need to pay
to do it with Sky+?
If I can use the Sky EPG to schedule recordings using other external
recorders, which you can, why do I have to pay when using the same EPG to do
the same scheduling but using Sky+?
It makes no justifiable sense.
We are back to the fact you are just paying to switch recording on. Nothing
more, nothing less.

Loz

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
loz wrote:

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.
I came up with explanations, why there is no reason to wine about it. I
certainly never tried to justify anything.

Sorry, but you have constantly tried to justify it. Or perhaps that word is
lost in translation.

Claims by you that it is "to cover content" for example , that others you
have put forward are all attempts to justify it.
As in, the fee exists because it has this measurable and justifiable value -
such as content provision.

Loz

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
loz wrote:
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.
I came up with explanations, why there is no reason to wine about it. I
certainly never tried to justify anything.

I notice you made no attempt to cover the other points I made in this reply.
Are you beginning to agree with me then? :-)

Loz

At 14:25:53 on 06/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
Ok, so why does Sky not charge to record its channels on DTT?

Because they are not providing the service to record on DTT. They
are providing the service to record over their system, using their
EPG, and with the ability to enable that recording remotely.

If they are the service provider not the manufacturer surely they
would charge on DTT too. If it is justifiable on one manufacturers
platform surely it is justifiable on another's?
And why does Sky charge to record other broadcaster's channels on
Sky?
They don't. They charge to record over their system, using the EPG
data. You can record any channel you have access to for free -
presuming you have any requisite subscription - without the EPG
using your favourite recording device.
If a Service Provider such as BBC chooses not to charge for
recording on DTT, why do Sky charge you to record it on Sky? It
isn't their channel or content or service. Sky doesn't provide
BBCi.
They provide access to it over their network. You may quite freely
record it yourself using a recorder connected to your Sky box, or a
recorder connected to a DTV receiver. If you choose to record it
over the Sky network using the Sky EPG data then you must pay any
applicable fee to do so.

So if I can freely do all this using other recorders, why do I need
to pay to do it with Sky+?

Why, indeed? If you feel there's no benefit then don't pay.

loz wrote:

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
How many *comparebale* pay tv providers do exist in the UK, which I
could Sky compare to? Freeview? I don't think so.

Why on earth not?

Because one is not a suitable alternative or substitution for another.

Let me make it clear.
Why do Sky charge the Sky+ fee to record, when the DTT PVR or manufacturers
do not?

I sense some strange double standards here... On one hand I'm not
supposed to use analogies from other markets like the phone market to
point out that it is perfectly normal to charge for ongoing services,
even if the neccessary equipment has the fuctions built-in. On the other
hand you are trying to compare Sky (a plattform and content provider)
with PVR manufacturerers, which have nothing in common at all.

And what as the licence fee got to do with it? That is nothing to do with
recording.

Easy: A licence grants one party of a contract to do certain things with
the property of the other party.

A contract which allows you to decrypt and digitaly record protected
content of a content provider is in fact a licence. In the case of Sky
you have the choice, if you want the standard licence (for decrypting
and viewing the content) or if you want to extented licence (for
decrypting, viewing and recording the content). The latter licence is
called "Sky+" and costs 10 Pound more than the standard licence.

And the licence fee applies equally to DTT and Sky.

No: different contract parties, different contract, different licence,
different terms & conditions.

And the same channels are on DTT and Sky (just that Sky has more)

I can buy the same car at 10 differnt dealers. Why would all those
dealers have to give me the same conditions?

As I understand it, DTT consists of the following players:
1. PVR manufacturers
2. Infrastructure Providers like Freeview

Freeview is just a marketing label

According to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...ited_Kingd om

It's a service provider, which resells the content of the consortium
members.

The individual broadcasters provide the transmissions.

No, Freeview does. The content is being delivered by the Freeview
members on the terms of the consortium contract.

Or do you become a Sky customer by watching Sky News on Freeview? I
don't think so. Therefo No contract, no legal relationship between
Sky and the Freeview viewers.

Sky on the other hand is a content owner and content provider. Neither
the PVR manufacturers nor Freeview owns any of the content.

No - sky owes just a very small number of channels on the Sky platform
The vast majority of them are owned by other broadcasters.
So why does Sky charge a fee to record other broadcasters channels?

Because the other broadcasters obviously agreed by choosing the Sky
platform for their broadcasts. As I explained in another posting today,
it's quiet attractive for broadcasters to know that their content can't
be recorded so easily. No recording - no fast forwarding commercials -
better commercial prices - more money.

All of which might be true.
But I thought we were talking about justifications for the Sky+ fee.

no, I didn't talk about justification. I tried to explain why this can
be considered a regular business modell opposed to the ripp-off that
some people claimed in this thread.

I don't deny it is part of a contract, and Sky can choose to do it, and I
can choose not to have it.

Well, then it's valid. You just don't like it.

But that isn't a justification for it.

The mechanism of supply and demand justify it. Obviously there are
enough people out there who are willing to pay 10 Pounds for being
allowed to record on the sky platform.

--
Gruß,
Jörn

loz wrote:

Ok, so why does Sky not charge to record its channels on DTT?


1. The consortium contract obviously doesn't allow it.
2. There is no direct business relation between Sky and DTT viewers, is
there?

If they are the service provider not the manufacturer surely they would
charge on DTT too. If it is justifiable on one manufacturers platform surely
it is justifiable on another's?

Sky isn't a manufacturer and therefore Sky+ isn't a manufacturerer's
platform.

And why does Sky charge to record other broadcaster's channels on Sky?

Because their contract with the other broadcasters say so.

If a Service Provider such as BBC chooses not to charge for recording on
DTT, why do Sky charge you to record it on Sky? It isn't their channel or
content or service. Sky doesn't provide BBCi.

Sky's platform does provide it. And the BBC agreed to use the Sky
plattform on Sky's terms. One of those terms is a restriction regarding
recording capabilities.


--
Gruß,
Jörn

loz wrote:

Keeping this in mind a broadcasting plattform which doesn't allow
recording by default could be even more attractive to broadcasters and
advertisers than other plattforms do allow recording by default.

Nothing to do with it.
e.g. BBC is FTA with no advertising. So why do I have to pay to record that
on Sky?

Because BBC agreed to this, when they decided to use Sky as a
broadcasting platform. You gonna have to ask the yourself why. My guess
is, that they just don't care.

Recording programmes using Video, DVDR, DTT PVRs etc, is fully permitted in
law in the UK for the purposes of time shifting and requires no payment to
anyone using any of these other mechanisms.

This might be true for analogue recordings. But when it comes to
recording encrypted content things are a little bit different. The
encryption can be seen as a copy protection mechanism which
prevents the content to be duplicated. Every recording is a duplication
by definition.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm no expert in UK law but at least in Germany and
most other european countries it is illegal to break copy protection
mechanisms.

What Sky does with Sky+ is giving you the legal right to copy/record
their material even dispite the fact that the material is encrypted and
therefore copy protected.

Of course we both know, that it's no problem to copy DVDs or to record
Sky programmes with Linux based PVRs. But just because it's possible
doesn't mean it's legal.

Sky do not prevent anyone recording their programmes (except PPV) using
traditional methods such as video. Nor do they prevent you recording them on
a DTT PVR

They only let you record what they are willing to give out for free. You
will never see Sky giving you access to premium content like the movie's
channels.

The reason is simple: If they would do so, they had to pay higher
licence fees to the movie studios. The contracts between movies studios
and broadcasters say explicitely how the material may be accessable and
whether it has to be encrypted/copy protected.


--
Gruß,
Jörn