SKY+

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:53:43 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Why should I be *excluded* from recording digitally?

The means of recording is not relevant. The fact that you CAN easily
record, in a multiplicity of ways, is, and is the answer to your
point.

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?

You can record digital channels perfectly adequately with other
equipment if you choose to. The only reason to use a Sky+ is if you
WANT to.
--

On 9 Sep 2006 18:03:05 GMT, "Alex" wrote:

At 18:53:43 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:
Why should I be excluded from recording digitally?

Why should I be excluded from broadband greater than 1Mb?

Why should I be excluded from Faberge eggs? Why, if the people only
knew, there would be an outcry.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:39:58 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

They don't have to. They can record onto VHS, DVD or HDD.

Not digitally with the ease of a digital PVR.

Raw ingredients are cheaper than ready-made convenience foods.
So why should we have to pay more for convenience? It should be free.

That seems to be what you're saying. It's easier, and better, so it
should be free. The fact that other perfectly good alternatives are
available just doesn't come in to it.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:49:22 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Why do any of us need one?
If 75% of the population can have one without paying, why can't the other
25% have one too?

Why can't the other 25% move? This is ridiculous.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:40:04 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Why should 25% of the country have to pay £10 a month to record digital TV,
just because of their postcode?

THEY DO NOT HAVE TO. THEY CAN RECORD IT WITH A VCR, OR A DVD RECORDER,
OR SOMETHING ELSE!


--

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 19:17:03 GMT, Chris Leuty
wrote:

The other option is to wait. The overwhelming majority of that 25% will,
within 6 years or so, get DTT and be able to use whatever recording
technology is available by then.

By which time Sky+ will almost certainly be free for everyone anyway.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:13:50 +0100, "Clueless2" [email protected] wrote:

I would like to have a 40" HD LCD TV that I cannot afford, I don't have a
choice on the price, but I have a choice NOT to buy one.

Nonsense. You're entitled to that TV for free. Why should you have to
pay to watch digital TV in its proper format? It's quite disgraceful.
:-)

--

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...

Why do any of us need one?
If 75% of the population can have one without paying, why can't the other
25% have one too?
Why can't the other 25% move? This is ridiculous.

Ah! the old "get on your bike" ploy.

And why can't Sky drop the £10 Sky+ fee. That too is ridiculous

Loz

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...

They don't have to. They can record onto VHS, DVD or HDD.
Not digitally with the ease of a digital PVR.
Raw ingredients are cheaper than ready-made convenience foods.
So why should we have to pay more for convenience? It should be free.
That seems to be what you're saying. It's easier, and better, so it
should be free. The fact that other perfectly good alternatives are
available just doesn't come in to it.

But DTT PVR "convenience foods" *are* free.
It is only Sky who charge for convenience.

Loz

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
Why should I be excluded from recording digitally?

Why should I be excluded from broadband greater than 1Mb?

Why should I be excluded from Faberge eggs? Why, if the people only
knew, there would be an outcry.

The government has decreed that we will all transition to Digital TV.

I am not aware that Tony Blair, nor his replacement, has decreed we should
all have Faberge eggs.

Loz