SKY+

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
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.

But if it is so valuable, and a clearly identifiable and justifiable Service
provision, as you have constantly maintained, then why do they need to give
it away?

You spend all your time argueing why the fee is valid, and then in the next
breadth say it is will be free.
If it is free, it clearly cannot have any justifiable value otherwise they
would not give it away.

Loz

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
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.

Now you are being silly.

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

That does seem to be what you're arguing.

Where?
I expect the recording option to be free. Not the device itself. I have
never suggested that.
Have happily bought all my Sky boxes.

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!".

The discussion isn't the T&C of Sky's contract. I am well aware of that.
The discussion (I though) is whether the Sky+ fee is justifiable, and on
what basis it is charged, when equivalent DTT devices for example have no
such charge.
But lets not start at square one again...

Loz

loz wrote:
"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
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?

But they do not discuss the difference between Tesco Value Sausage
Rolls and Tesco Finest Premium Sausage Rolls in parliment.
But they do discuss the difference between VCRs and digital PVRs and
recognise that they need to be widely available as part of the
digital transition

Loz

But they do abo9ut pork pies!!!


--�
Ta!

Nige

Subaru WRX (54)
Land Rover Turbo Diesel 110 (G)
KTM 520 SX (2001)

At 16:10:13 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
... Do VCRs record a digital
signal then? More than adequately, yes.

They do not record a digital signal at all. They record an analog
one.

The same analog one that your TV accepts, whether it's from the Sky
box or the recorder. If the quality's crap perhaps you need a
better cable or recording device.

My TV also accepts a digital signal.
Which my SkyHD box outputs.

Now you're changing the rules yet again! Let's play this game then.
Are you going to insist that 75% of the UK can get non-copy-protected
HD over DTT and that their recorders can record this for free so you
should be able to do the same?

At 16:15:42 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

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

Neither have they decreed that we should all have Sky+.

No, nor would they ever recommend a single brand.
Not even Tony and Rupert could get that one through parliment.
But they have recognised the need for digital PVRs.

The need?

"Nige" wrote in message
...

But they do not discuss the difference between Tesco Value Sausage
Rolls and Tesco Finest Premium Sausage Rolls in parliment.
But they do discuss the difference between VCRs and digital PVRs and
recognise that they need to be widely available as part of the
digital transition

But they do abo9ut pork pies!!!

Well they certainly tell a lot...

"Alex" wrote in message
...

They do not record a digital signal at all. They record an analog
one.

The same analog one that your TV accepts, whether it's from the Sky
box or the recorder. If the quality's crap perhaps you need a
better cable or recording device.

My TV also accepts a digital signal.
Which my SkyHD box outputs.

Now you're changing the rules yet again! Let's play this game then.
Are you going to insist that 75% of the UK can get non-copy-protected
HD over DTT and that their recorders can record this for free so you
should be able to do the same?

Not at all, and I have no idea why you are suggesting that.

The point implied was that TV's only accept an analog signal and that is all
a Sky box or any other recorder outputs.
I was mearly correcting that point.

Loz

At 16:19:32 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

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

But you still haven't told us why you want to do this, other than
the fact that you want it because everyone else has it.

Because it is higher quality

Granted. But decent equipment gets you a perfectly acceptable
recording over scart - certainly much better than VHS, for instance. I
still don't see why you want this exact quality recording other than to
keep up with the Joneses.

and easier to use

This is nonsense. There's nothing about recording the digital signal
that makes a device inherently easier to use. Are you talking about
Sky+ now? In which case, it's got nothing to do with you not being
able to get DTT.

At 16:22:14 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
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.

But if it is so valuable, and a clearly identifiable and justifiable
Service provision, as you have constantly maintained, then why do
they need to give it away?

You spend all your time argueing why the fee is valid, and then in
the next breadth say it is will be free. If it is free, it clearly
cannot have any justifiable value otherwise they would not give it
away.

It's called marketing. Companies do it all the time. Sometimes they
actually make a loss doing it; these are called 'loss leaders'.

At 16:04:39 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
They do not record a digital signal at all. They record an analog
one. They only accept an analog input, and only record it in
analog.

Does your television display a digital signal? Oh no it doesn't, it
only displays an analogue one. It only accepts an analogue input,
and it only displays it in analogue.

Do you know nothing about Sky HD and HDMI connections?
Pure digital, all the way.

With copy protection so that you *cannot* make a copy if the provider
doesn't want you to.