SKY+

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:53:06 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Well if the only choice of receiving them is Sky, then the only choice of
recording them is Sky+ if you wish to remain in the digital domain.

Other digital recorders are available. DVD recorders are digital..

--

At 17:36:19 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

And has been explained, many do not have the choice when it comes
to C4 and C5.

And, as has been explained but you seem unable to comprehend, those
people have the choice of using many other methods to record a very
acceptable copy over the scart.

But you aruge that one advantage of Sky+ is digital recording.

Of course.

DTT PVRs also offer digital recording.

Great.

Why should I settle for analog recording of C4/5/etc when integrated
is clearly superior and easier?

That's your choice.

Why do DTT PVRs offer these benefits
without a monthly fee, whereas Sky+ requires one?

Because that's the charging model that Sky have chosen.

Why should 25% of
the population have to pay £10 a month to Sky just to switch on the
recording option of the only digital PVR option available to them to
record channels like C4, 5, BB3/4, ITV2/3 which are not part of any
Sky subscription?

Because that's the choice they have. Alternatively, they can choose to
pay no subscription and use another recording method.

Or as usual do you believe they should eat cake instead? How
considerate you are to those less fortunate than you...

I'm not sure I understand this point. How does my having Sky+ make
others less fortunate than me?

At 16:51:28 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Clueless2" [email protected] wrote in message
...
I tolerate it because I have no choice.

Are you really that spoilt to think that you have no choice
regarding whether you purchase the Sky+ service or not? Of course
you have a choice...

I have no other choice of recording digital TV.

Give me an alternative that works where I live and I will gladly
consider it.

VCRs are quite cheap. Or did you mean digitally recording TV? Why do
you need to do this in the first place, BTW?

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
I have no other choice of recording digital TV.

Give me an alternative that works where I live and I will gladly consider
it.

Do you live in some unusual part of the Welsh valleys where powerful
magnetic mountains render VCRs inoperable?

Do VCRs record a digital signal then?

Loz

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:53:06 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Well if the only choice of receiving them is Sky, then the only choice of
recording them is Sky+ if you wish to remain in the digital domain.

Other digital recorders are available. DVD recorders are digital..

Now you know full well what I mean.

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...

I have no other choice of recording digital TV.

Give me an alternative that works where I live and I will gladly
consider it.
VCRs are quite cheap. Or did you mean digitally recording TV? Why do
you need to do this in the first place, BTW?

Because everyone keeps argueing that is a benefit of Sky+.
And I agree.

DTT PVRs also offer digital recording and the conveniences of Sky+ but
without any monthly fee.
However, I cannot receive DTT.
So Sky+ is my only option.

I realize that it is not Sky's fault as such. If anyone, the fault lies at
the governments door for allowing Sky to operate in this way.
The government promote digital TV, but seem to forget the fact that 25% of
the population only have access to it via satellite.
If everyone was forced to pay a £10 a month fee to use the record option on
a digital receivers there would be uproar and the government would surely
disallow it. But as it is, they seem to find it acceptable that 25% have no
alternative but to pay it if we want digital recording.
Do you think that is fair?

Loz

At 18:13:51 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

I have no other choice of recording digital TV.

Give me an alternative that works where I live and I will gladly
consider it.
VCRs are quite cheap. Or did you mean digitally recording TV? Why
do you need to do this in the first place, BTW?

Because everyone keeps argueing that is a benefit of Sky+.
And I agree.

There you go then. It's a cost/benefit equation. If you feel the cost
outweighs the benefit, you choose something else.

You didn't actually answer the question, though. *Why* do you need to
record digitally?

I realize that it is not Sky's fault as such. If anyone, the fault
lies at the governments door for allowing Sky to operate in this way.
The government promote digital TV, but seem to forget the fact that
25% of the population only have access to it via satellite. If
everyone was forced to pay a £10 a month fee to use the record option
on a digital receivers there would be uproar and the government would
surely disallow it. But as it is, they seem to find it acceptable
that 25% have no alternative but to pay it if we want digital
recording. Do you think that is fair?

That depends on your answer to the above question.

"Alex" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure I understand this point. How does my having Sky+ make
others less fortunate than me?

No, it is your "if you have no choice and don't like it, then tough" stance
that implies you would be happy for people to eat cake if they cannot afford
bread.

Loz

At 18:16:03 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure I understand this point. How does my having Sky+ make
others less fortunate than me?

No, it is your "if you have no choice and don't like it, then tough"
stance that implies you would be happy for people to eat cake if they
cannot afford bread.

There's a difference between a luxury item and a necessity. TV itself
is a luxury item, let alone a recording device and especially one that
records digitally.

"Alex" wrote in message
...
You didn't actually answer the question, though. *Why* do you need to
record digitally?

Why should I be *excluded* from recording digitally?
Why, when it is government policy to transition to digital TV, should 25% of
the population have paying Sky £10 a month as their only option for digital
recordings, when the other 75% do not?
Do you think that is fair?

Why do you choose a Sky+ if there is no benefit to it?

Loz