SKY+

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:14:36 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

VCRs do not make a bitstream recording as has been explained several
times.

You do not need to make a bitstream recording to be able to record
something. That is only one way of doing so.

Let's pursue your argument a bit further. Let's suppose that all the
VCR makers gang together and introduce a monthly fee for VCR use. Will
you pay it happily?

If the products are sold on that basis and if, on balance of the
features and benefits offered by the product, I consider it to be a
good deal and I choose to pay it, then yes, and what the hell business
is it of yours telling me what I can and cannot buy? Just because YOU
don't want to pay it doesn't mean that I shoudln't have the choice.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:23:24 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Not digitally.

A DVD recorder is digital. An offboard PVR like TiVo is digital.

Both of these, and a conventional VCR, are all commonly accepted means
of recording television programmes.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:12:57 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

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

Why should they? If people consider the Sky+ service worth paying for,
and enough of a quantum leap over VCR and DVD recording, then why
should they turn that money away? They obviously have a good product
which people are happy to pay for. Any business would do the same.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:14:51 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

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

And everyone is free to make the choice that suits them.
What's wrong with that?

--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:14:36 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

You aren't excluded from this, unless your phone line is too long in
which case it is hardly anyone's fault. You have a wide choice of ISPs
at hugely varying prices from free to quite expensive. You can buy any
PC you want and use it with any ISP.

The same does not apply to the Sky+.

The same does not apply because you are comparing generic with
specific. "You can buy orange juice anywhere, the same does not apply
to Tesco Premium Ginger Beer."

Ditto, Sky+ is available only from Sky, but other recording solutions
are freely available.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:20:12 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

The government recognises that for many the complexity of setting up
external recorders and scheduling recording is not as easy as it is using a
PVR. Clearly they are not so backward thinking or selfish as you.

The Government recognises that Tesco Value Sausage Rolls do not taste
as nice as Tesco Finest Premium Sausage Rolls. What are they going to
do, make the cheaper option illegal?

Actually given this Government's prolific approach to introducing new
laws in order to protect ministers from distressing headlines in the
Daily Mail, er, I mean, to protect the public from distressing
incidents, then who knows how long before the Government announces
that it is to crack down on our valuesome sausage friends.

You can record digital channels perfectly adequately with other
equipment if you choose to.

Not digitally, with the quality and ease of use of a PVR.

Quality and ease of use cost money. Stop pretending it's some kind of
basic human right. We're talking about television here. Just
television. PVRs are a LUXURY.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:23:52 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Why?

Apparently people with Sky+ are so delighted with the service that not
only are they happy to pay for it, but they're also far less likely to
cancel their Sky subscriptions overall. On that basis, my guess is
that it can't be too long before Sky will earn more cash from loyal
and happy non-cancelling customers by making Sky+ free to all.

And if then, why not now?

Dunno - maybe there aren't enough customers for the maths to work out
just at the moment. (e.g. Sky+ income from 1 million customers
outweighs cost of loss from 7 million customers, but not 10.. I don't
know.)
--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:14:37 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

What you are saying is that there is no service and hence no need for
a charge.

That is not what I am saying at all. Stop being so desperate.

--

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:27:07 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

I don't expect to be provided a TV for free.

But how are you supposed to watch digital TV? Surely you're not
suggesting that people watch digital TV on their nasty old analogue
televisions? I'm sure the Government wouldn't like that. After all,
the Government has mandated that we transition to digital TV, so
obviously everyone should be entitled not only to free PVRs but to
free digital display equipment. Some nice flat panel LCDs should do
it. Anything else is just unacceptable, surely, by your argument.

I don't expect to be provided a Digital PVR for free.

That does seem to be what you're arguing.

But having paid for them, I expect both to function without paying any
additional fees.

Look at it this way - Sky+ is a set top box with a hard disc in it. As
sold, it cannot be used as a PVR. It is not a PVR unless you choose to
subscribe to the Sky+ service, which includes PVR functionality.
You KNOW this if you buy a Sky+ box. It is sold on that basis. You
can't turn around NOW and say "But I've paid for this! It should be
free!".

Is that so unreasonable?

Yes it is.

If I lived in another part of the country, my expectation would be met.

Perhaps you should have more realistic expectations.

--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:14:37 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Zero Tolerance 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..

If you choose to forget the double decoding-encoding procedure
involved, yes.

Which is quite irrelevant and does not prevent you from making an
entirely satisfactory recording of any programme which you wish to,
without being "forced" to pay the "outrageous" Sky+ charge.


--