SKY+

Clueless2 wrote:

Surprising as it may seem, I have been aware of this since the Sky+
was released.
I bought my Sky+ for several reasons, none of which are related to
recording.

OK, so you have no need for the additional Sky+ service and features. As
such I take it you will not be using the recording service even if the Sky+
fee is abolished altogether.

I would use it for programmes that merit using the optical audio
output (films, concerts etc.) and which benefit from better recording
quality. For all regular programmes I would continue to use my Tivo
which does the job far better.

--
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. ;-)

Jomtien wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

It is sold over the counter for a list price with no requirement for
any sort of contract etc.
Your point being? If you HAD to take out a contract then you'd just
moan all the more.

The point being that the box should work without a contract as there
is no contract needed to buy one.


Like a mobile phone?

Mike

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...

That's your (slanted) opinion. Clearly over a million people disagree
with you.

Just because they have one doesn't mean that they disagree.

I have one, and I don't disagree.

I tolerate it because I have no choice.

Loz

At 08:59:24 on 09/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

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.

The same cake as C4/C5 viewers who want to record those channels?

Who's preventing them doing so?

At 08:59:24 on 09/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Alex wrote:

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.

There is no "licence" to use a tuner that you have bought.

There certainly is. I pay it monthly to TVL.

and anything
else connected with recording.

There is nothing.

That you know of.

No question about it.

Then you work for Sky at a senior level.

At 08:59:24 on 09/09/2006, 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.

As has already been pointed out, many cannot receive the mainstream
terrestrial channels without a Sky box.

What's that got to do with Sky+?

At 08:59:24 on 09/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Alex wrote:

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.

They do indeed pay a fee for this.

Not a subscription.

And they have NO choice in the type of equipment they use. Also, in
order to record C4 whilst watching C5 they would have to double up all
the equipment and pay a second fee for a viewing card.

Ah, bless! Having to pay for a luxury item. Whatever is the world
coming to?

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.

That isn't a choice. It is an obligation.

Who is obliging them not to use the scart?

There is no justifiable
reason why those wanting to record C4 and C5 should have to pay Sky in
order to do so.

They don't have to.

There are no official alternatives.

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

As explained above, some people have no choice.

They most certainly *do* have a choice. The choice is between not
recording; recording using a VCR, DVD recorder or HD recorder; or using
Sky+.

At 08:59:24 on 09/09/2006, 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.

Hey, I didn't say "A fee for a non-essential item or service is
justified as soon as somebody pays it.". You did.

Your analogy was flawed.

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.

As has been explained, many people who want to receive C4 and C5 have
no choice but to use Sky equipment.

Agreed.

And if they want to make a decent
recording they have to pay Sky a monthly fee.

This bit is nonsense. I have made numerous decent recordings onto DVD
via the scart.

At 08:59:24 on 09/09/2006, Jomtien delighted uk.media.tv.sky by
announcing:

Zero Tolerance wrote:

It is sold over the counter for a list price with no requirement
for any sort of contract etc.

Your point being? If you HAD to take out a contract then you'd just
moan all the more.

The point being that the box should work without a contract as there
is no contract needed to buy one.

That argument is patently absurd.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Jomtien wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:

It is sold over the counter for a list price with no requirement for
any sort of contract etc.
Your point being? If you HAD to take out a contract then you'd just
moan all the more.

The point being that the box should work without a contract as there
is no contract needed to buy one.

Like a mobile phone?

Analogies are always poor in the end.
Everyone tries to keep comparing Sky+ to mobile phones, but I think they get
it wrong.

A call made on a mobile phone equates to the channel content on Sky.
You can buy a phone or a Sky+ box outright.
Then you pay for the calls on the phone or the channels on Sky.

Having bought a Sky+ box, and a subscription to channels (content) and then
having to pay another subscription to record them, is like saying you bought
a phone, you have a monthly package of SMS messages (content), but then have
to pay another subscription to save the messages in a folder on your phone.
Ludicrous.

All the functions of my phone work perfectly without having to pay a
separate charge to anyone to use them
The only fee I pay is for calls - i.e. content. Not to make the hardware
work.

Loz