SKY+

At 08:25:12 on 08/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Alex wrote:

So, you agree then. The Sky+ fee is simply to turn the recording
option on. All this debate, and in the end you agree that the Sky+
fee is for nothing other than to use the recording option

Who argued anything else?

You did, as did several others.

I did not.

The Sky+ fee is to enable the recording;

You've got that bit right. As such it is unjustifiable.

In your opinion.

this may include one or more of: the licence fee for the software,

No, this is provided free of charge to all users.

It is installed on the box, but the use of it is restricted to those
who pay for that use.

use
of the second tuner to receive a second data stream,

No, this is included in the purchase price.

No. The hardware is included; the licence to use it is not.

use of the EPG
data to control that recording,

No, this is provided free of charge to all users.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

fees to content providers,

There are none.

That you know of.

and anything
else connected with recording.

There is nothing.

That you know of.

At 08:25:12 on 08/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Alex wrote:

I do have a Sky+ that I purchased outright from a shop with no
contract and I would like to use it to record non-pay non-Sky
channels, which are the only channels I receive. Just as I would
with any sort of recording device. There is no reason why I should
have to pay anything to Sky in order to do so as it has nothing
whatsoever to do with them.

Except that they control the software in the box, part of which they
would like you to pay a licence fee for.

So, extortion then.

Why? They're not forcing you to use it. They're not even forcing you
to have the box.

At 08:25:12 on 08/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Alex wrote:

and
their customers are able to freely choose a different service
provider or PVR.

No, they aren't and this is the whole problem.

Yes, they are. I wasn't aware that there was any legislation
requiring TV viewers to subscribe to Sky or own a Sky+ box.

There seem to be many things that you are unaware of.

Of course there are. I'm not God.

Anyone living in a poor RF reception area (this covers a very large
number of people) MUST use a Sky box and card to receive C4 and C5.

And they do not need to pay a subscription for this.

Anyone wishing to make direct bitstream recordings of those two
channels from satellite MUST use a Sky+.

And that is a personal choice. Recording from the scart socket is
perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of people.

There are no official alternatives.

But there is no requirement that people must do this, or even must be
able to do this.

At 08:25:12 on 08/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Alex wrote:

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"?

Any fee has to be justified. If it can't be then it is a rip-off.

Nonsense. A fee for a non-essential item or service is justified as
soon as somebody pays it.

So "stand and deliver" is justified, is it?

As is "that'll be £900, love" to an old granny who has just had two
loose roof tiles changed.

It is in no way comparable. I don't see Sky engineers breaking in and
installing Sky before extorting money for the privilege. It requires a
choice by, d a request from, the householder who always knows the
charges up front.

At 08:25:11 on 08/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Zero Tolerance wrote:

How is it superior?

Sky+ has many features that DTT PVRs don't.

Hmm. Let's examine these and see which form part of the "service"
given in return for the monthly £10 payment.


Dolby Digital output,

This is included in the purchase price and functions with or without
the Sky+ fee.

But it *is* a feature that DTT PVRs don't have, nevertheless.

remote recording setup,

Hardly an earth-shattering function. Indeed one that I would never
use.

I have, several times.

My Tivo can do it too, for free, and I have never had the
slightest desire to do it.
And doesn't it cost extra money to do this on the Sky+?

Only if you do it by text message (understandably).

recording and playback of subtitles and audio
description,

This may be of use to the deaf or blind, but not to me.

Let them eat cake.

Any recorder can record that data burnt-in anyway, for those who need
it.

If you set it all up beforehand, perhaps.

copy lists (for dumping loads of programmes to tape),

Wow.
On a DVDR/HDD machine one can make numerous edits and burn to DVD
directly at high speed. Without a fee.


being able to press the green button to instantly add a programme to
your record list with one touch...

Only on a few programmes that support this, and even then you would
have to be watching the adverts in real-time in order to be able to do
so. Personally I rarely watch the ads at all, or TV in real time.
That's why I have a PVR.

And, of course, you can do this on any Sky box for free and use the
built-in free autoview EPG function to record from.



... direct EPG recording so that (on some channels) if a programme
starts late you don't miss the show.

Again, you can do this on any Sky box for free and use the built-in
free autoview EPG function to record from.


Adjustable padding (start x
minutes early, record for x minutes longer).

My Tivo does this. Many DVDRs do it too.


Interactive recording
(record multi-screen events like football)..

I suppose someone, somewhere might want to do this. I've never met him
though.

There are 60m people in the UK. What proportion have you met?

A constantly updated EPG
(some DTT PVRs use their own, which is only updated the day
before).. live rewind.. series link (many DTT PVRs don't offer
this)... parental control (many DTT PVRs don't offer this
either)...

Again, all provided for free on any Sky box.

We're talking about other PVRs though.

What else... how about stable and constantly updated software?

Again, provided for free on any Sky box.

But we're talking about other PVRs.

Whereas Sky supports every single
Sky box ever sold, always with new software, new features, all the
time.

Again, provided for free on any Sky box.

But we're talking about other PVRs.

So where is the "service" the £10 pays for?

You've been told numerous times. If you don't think it qualifies as a
service then you shouldn't pay for it. Leave those who do, to do so.

At 08:25:11 on 08/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Zero Tolerance wrote:

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

Because as anyone who has used other recorders will tell you, the
Sky+ service is superior.

Nonsense.

Your opinion.

At 08:25:12 on 08/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

I am at a loss why you continue to bitch about the Sky+ fee

Because it is a rip-off and unjustifiable.

In your opinion.

"Alex" wrote in message
...

and anything
else connected with recording.

There is nothing.

That you know of.

Well if he knows of nothing, and you know of nothing.
I guess that means, there's nothing.

If there is something, pray tell us what it is.

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...
use of the second tuner to receive a second data stream,
No, this is included in the purchase price.
No. The hardware is included; the licence to use it is not.

But *why*?
What is the justification for it?
No other PVR does that. Why do Sky?

use of the EPG data to control that recording,
No, this is provided free of charge to all users.
Perhaps, perhaps not.

? No perhaps about it.
The EPG is provided free of charge to all users.
Do you dispute that?

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...

And you can get lots of other software without paying a fee. The point
is that you must pay the fee to *use* the software.

The Software is a single entity.

It's obvious you don't understand software licensing.
I understand *lots* about software licensing.

My point was AFIAC was as a user, it is a single entity that is installed by
Sky on my box.
I get the Sky+ software components regardless of whether I have paid a fee
or not.

Anyway, I have never argued about the licencing of Sky+. I fully understand
how it works.
My issue, repeatedly has been the basis on which many people in this thread
have sort to justify it. As in, "it pays for the software", "its for the
content", etc, etc. All of which are easily disputed in my book, especially
when compared to equivalent PVRs that do not carry such a fee

Loz