SKY+

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Non-Sky subscribers pay Sky nothing.
So what is the Sky+ fee a loss leader of in their case?

Sky+ users are statistically less likely to cancel their Sky account.

Non-Sky subscribers *don't have* a Sky account....

Let's try again: Perhaps you should remember exactly who said what.

Sorry.

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...
The whole thread is about what you can copy, and how. If you stick
to one topic at a time you may not tie yourself up in knots.

But the discussion was not at any time about copy protection.
Sky could copy protect things now on Sky and stop Sky+ recording them.

They couldn't stop you recording them onto your VCR, only onto your
Sky+ box.

But recording programmes to an external device has got nothing to do with
the Sky+ fee.
This is going off track.

Sky+ fee isn't about whether you can record to a VCR or not, is it?

Sky HD doesn't change that.

It would prevent the recording of the digital signal. You're the one
who brought the HD box into it in the first place.

And what has that got to do with the Sky+ fee being justified or not?

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...
But that point was in relation to recording. This is, after all,
what we're discussing. If you can find a recorder with DVI/HDMI
input that supports HDCP (and is therefore compatible with the
SkyHD output) then your problem is solved.

Why would I need one with Sky HD or Telewest HD?
I don't get your point.

No, you don't. You're confused again. Remember what we're talking
about here? Making a recording of a digital TV program.

Which is what Sky HD or Telewest HD do don't they?
Why would I need an external recorder?

The discussion has never been about content protection by the way.
What has content protection got to do with the Sky+ fee?

What has HD got to do with the Sky+ fee? Either expand the
conversation into the new subject you introduced, or drop the new
subject.

I didn't say "What has HD got to do with the Sky+ fee?"
I said, "What has content protection got to do with the Sky+ fee?"

I only bought HD up to show that I do have an all digital signal path.
It is relevant from the perspective that Sky HD still levies the same Sky+
fee.
Whether the HD box enforces copy protection is a different subject.

Loz

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:04:39 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
Does your television display a digital signal? Oh no it doesn't, it
only displays an analogue one.

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

Well Sky HD (having no terrestrial equivalent) is a somewhat different
argument.
--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:36:22 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

"Alex" wrote in message
Telewest HD doesn't exist then?

It only differs in content availabilty, not in functionality.

The difference being that Telewest HD does not HAVE any content at
all. (And they charge you £15/month to record it digitally.)

--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:06:27 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

In the digital age, when bitstream recorders are widely available, why
should I have to use anything else?

Because some things cost money. Why should you be under the impression
that you're exempt from such things?

--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:18:12 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

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

And they are widely available.

--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:22:14 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

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.

"Free" as in "Free with something else" (e.g. a Sky subscription) - as
in no charge, but not standalone "free".

Why do people seem determined to wilfully misunderstand things?

--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:28:53 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

You did - I quoted from - "Sky will earn more cash from loyal and happy
non-cancelling customers by making Sky+ free to all."
See, at the end it says "free to all"

Actually I said that, not Alex, and secondly, you missed the word
"customers" in that sentence. Free to all obviously does not include
people who aren't customers.

--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:25:44 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Now you are being silly.

No sillier than those who seem to insist that recording the bitstream
is a matter of life-or-death because you can't possibly have a
digital-analogue step in the process.

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...

Indeed. And it is justifiable because it is a luxury service, sold to
people who have plenty of other options for obtaining the same or
equivalent functionality at other price points. It's not as if you're
being asked to pay for oxygen.

--