You can always count on Noise to provide the most expensive comparison for BT Vision. Surely a fairer way is too look at the cheapest possible option for each provider.
So:
for a 24 month contract
£27.99 for broadband option 2 + bronze pack
£11.99 for Sky 1 & 2
= £39.98
as opposed to Noise's own calculations for Sky of £51.75
Seems pretty clear to me.
never let the truth get in the way of a good argument eh..?
disregarding the other nonsense and just going by YOUR ridiculous comparison, the cheapest Sky Broadband deal is actually free..gratis... which immediately knocks off £12.50 from noises' Sky cost and makes it cheaper for 4 yes 4 sports channels!
or...
compare like for like...sky unlimited broadband vs bt unlimited broadband.
the figures again favour Sky.
We've 'discussed' this before and you also missed the broadband cost out of that too.
not like for like.
Bt broadband option two is pretty limited on data, sky broadband is unlimited, which is why I went for BT broadband option 3, because it is as close to unlimited as Bt gets.
i went for the bronze pack, because it is the lowest subscription as a package you can go for with Bt Vision
Sky is a bit more for Sky sports, but you do get 4 channels.
24 month contract is the biggie, sky is 12 months, that is long enough but 24 months is a long time and a lot of things can happen in 24 months.
Of course it isn't like for like because there is no such thing with this sort of comparison.
I have never seen any figures on how much bandwidth the 'average' household uses, but I was on option 1 for 2 years and only once got anywhere near 10gb. 40gb doesn't seem at all limited to me. In fact, I'd like to bet that most people on Sky's 'unlimited' broadband package would probably find 40gb more than adequate and probably never get anywhere near exceeding it. Sky are only pushing unlimited broadband because of there new Anytime service, but of course you don't need unlimited broadband to use the BT Vision on demand service, because the bandwidth doesn't come out of your monthly allowance.
On Sky you do get 4 sports channels, but on BT you also get ESPN for free, for which you have to pay extra on Sky. If you are going to try to tell me that Sky Sports 3 and 4 are better than ESPN then you really are having a laugh.
24 months isn't a biggy for me, it races past; maybe it's my age.
Of course it isn't like for like because there is no such thing with this sort of comparison.
I have never seen any figures on how much bandwidth the 'average' household uses, but I was on option 1 for 2 years and only once got anywhere near 10gb. 40gb doesn't seem at all limited to me. In fact, I'd like to bet that most people on Sky's 'unlimited' broadband package would probably find 40gb more than adequate and probably never get anywhere near exceeding it. Sky are only pushing unlimited broadband because of there new Anytime service, but of course you don't need unlimited broadband to use the BT Vision on demand service, because the bandwidth doesn't come out of your monthly allowance.
On Sky you do get 4 sports channels, but on BT you also get ESPN for free, for which you have to pay extra on Sky. If you are going to try to tell me that Sky Sports 3 and 4 are better than ESPN then you really are having a laugh.
24 months isn't a biggy for me, it races past; maybe it's my age.
what you use, i use or joe bloggs uses is irrelevant to the point at hand, as is you guessing what the average useage is. The future is the cloud, which means more bandwith.
you said..
'cheapest possible option for each provider' so I went by your rules and proved you were wrong.
Would I say SS3 and 4 are better than ESPN? of course I would, I can't see anything on there I would want to watch regularly, that isn't covered on SS.
on a separate 'real world' note.
My parents now pay less for Sky TV,line rental and broadband than they did with BT for just the line and broadband.
Free PVR (a first for them!) and £50 M&S vouchers.
And I too have only heard only good things about Humax boxes.
My first PVR was a humax, a single tuner one. It was a great box, until I decided to try and change the hard drive and for some reason it never worked after that, thankfully Currys took it back I then got a twin tuner Thomson and 12 months after that a top up T.V Thomson, only because my old Thomson did not have series record.
Then I took a break from T.v for almost 2 years and everything went into storage apart from the T.v itself as I used that for my Wii and PS3.
a few weeks back I got myself a Hitachi freeview PVR to replace the Top up digital one that was starting to play up, but that is working again now.
But yes the Humax was pretty good even in those days, the Freesat one two mates of mine have got is really nice, it is fast, simpleish to use, quiet, which is pretty important and got some nice features.
I may consider getting one of them to get my future Vision and Youview service, dependant upon what happens with our package prices.
Freesat is nice because it got a few more channels than Freeview, ok most are rubbish, but you got a few film channels and there are some news channels that I like to watch now and again.
Freeview will have Channel4 HD, what I may do, is get a Freeview version of you view and get a normal Freesat box for the other channels. My dish is stil on the wall, I was going to get rid of it, but will keep it until I decide what to do.
I may also go the other direction and say sod T.V and pack it all away again.
Of course it isn't like for like because there is no such thing with this sort of comparison.
But you can get pretty close to it and this is what people do when they compare products. I know sure well it is what I do.
I have never seen any figures on how much bandwidth the 'average' household uses, but I was on option 1 for 2 years and only once got anywhere near 10gb. 40gb doesn't seem at all limited to me. In fact, I'd like to bet that most people on Sky's 'unlimited' broadband package would probably find 40gb more than adequate and probably never get anywhere near exceeding it.
But times are a changing, people will use more bandwidth, you imagine you got what you call a standard household, 2 parents, to kids, they will all be doing their own thing, watching Iplayer and any other catch up service, watching You tube. Downloading music, streaming music. uploading stuff to social networks.
It all adds up.
A friend of mine and her daughter, with only two of them in the house uses more than 50Gb some months.
Sky are only pushing unlimited broadband because of there new Anytime service, but of course you don't need unlimited broadband to use the BT Vision on demand service, because the bandwidth doesn't come out of your monthly allowance.
Sky would do the same thing as well if they did not have unlimited.
Not every one with sky Broadband have Sky TV, most of them would, but I expect there are people who don't.
As a Stand alone broadband Service Sky Broadband is a great price, It is cheaper than what I am paying for mine,
If I changed to Sky broadband and talk I would save about £13 a month if not more.
but i am happy with what I got and don't really want to bundle things up
On Sky you do get 4 sports channels, but on BT you also get ESPN for free, for which you have to pay extra on Sky. If you are going to try to tell me that Sky Sports 3 and 4 are better than ESPN then you really are having a laugh.
i have no idea, I don't watch any of them, every time I see adverts for Sky sports and ESPN it is all about football.
i just had a look at what is on today on all five channels and to be honest none of them are to my taste, but then I am not a sporty person.
They all look as bad as each other, certainly not worth the high cost that sky or BTV charge for them.
24 months isn't a biggy for me, it races past; maybe it's my age.
It depends how tight the contract is, if you yhave some movement in the contract then it is not so bad, but if you got no movement in changing something in the package then it can be a problem.
I gave up with long contracts, the 18 months one I had with BT broadband anywhere was far too long. My mobile phone started to play up after 15 months and Bt would not do anything about it, I would have to pay for a new phone or carry on as I was.
If I was in a 12 month contract I could have changed to another network and told them to stuff it. they changed their tune when my contract was up I can tell you, but it was too late then
My broadband got no contract, never did,
My mobile have got 12 months, but that is only sim only and cost me a tenner a month, I think I could still afford that even if I lost my job.
Mobile is ending in April next year I think, but for a tenner a month for 300Mins of calls I will stick with them.
My Home is 12 months, but no silly re-newable contract that Bt seems to love. so after 12 months, that is it.
With long contracts they know they got you, get you in with a cheap deal and that is it, they have got you.
Sky is the same, they keep putting their prices up, which is why I left them years ago, or one of the reason, they put their price up and yet offered nothing new, still the same old repeats. Then they had the cheek to offer me a free Sky+ box, i asked him why would I want a box to record repeats?
I liked Top up TV, but their prices are too high for what they offer and my TUTV box hard drive is too small to make any use of it.
for the amount of T.v I watch I can get more than enough stuff from Freeview on my PVr.
Whilst we wait for a Youview service that has the potential to turn on demand TV on its head?
Now don't faint with Shock, but I agree.
Looking forward to this, and the future developments of content makers and providers.
That is what will make or break you view as long as they can get the hardware right.
Still a bit worried about it being Linux based, they got to make it secure.
There are tons of if's and buts.
Getting Humax on board is a good thing, getting Talk Talk is not such a good thing as long as all Talk Talk does is provide a box to it's customers and don't anything else then it may work
Price is another problem, how much will this box cost for people that are not using Talk Talk or BT, if it costs a lot more than a normal Freeview Hd PVR then it could die there and then.
I still don't think it will get people changing from sky in droves, but if Bt offers it for free then people may use it as a second box.
Very little info on it at the moment, people have no idea what it is, most people have not even heard about it. they need to get known before launch, months before launch, they need to make people know about what it will offer and how much it will change their t.v viewing.
They have not done that, they have not even got a date when it will be launched. you need to plan ahead, they need to tell people there their is a new super duper box coming out early next year, so people who are thinking about getting a new Freesat or Freeview HD PVr now may say, we will wait and see what this new box is like.
Once people have already paid a couple of hundred quid out this year for a new box they are not going to pay out again next year unless they have plenty of money.
YouView is not just a new service it is an entirely different way of using a set-top box, it takes everything to a new level. Humax has even had to take an even greater leap ahead than normal in technology stakes just to ensure the product has enough horsepower to meet the needs of the product. The current Foxsat products are no where near powerful enough to meet the needs of the YouView technology.
Bob Cat is a member of the Humax Team, and from what I can gather, quite high up in the organisation.
Just been looking around the 'net about BB subscriber numbers...
The UK now has 15 million fixed landline BB users, excluding DOCSIS users at 3,936,000 (VM cable).
The Youview target market is 7 million users. Obviously unachievable, as no marketing campaign saturates 100% of the market (7M is the absolute minimum of BB users with DTT Freeview).
Thats a lot. And, like Sky, it will take time to catch-on.
Youview has a five year marketing campaign, which all content providers have commited to. So they are clearly in this for the long-haul.
Now...if's, buts and maybe's time...
If say only 25% of the target market get it, thats 1.75 million users, treble the number using Vision.
If BT, with a minimum of 5M landline BB users and TalkTalk, again just short of 5M users, were to offer boxes as part of their BB deals, or subsidise the cost of a box, this could indeed be massive.
And as for buying a stand-alone box, I personally cannot see it costing anymore than a normal Freeview HD pvr, otherwise it won't sell.
Remember the HD player war? Toshiba HD vs Bluray HD? £1000 vs £600?
The Tosh HD format fell on it's arse and Bluray won (shades of Betamax/VHS anyone?).
IF it's sensibly market priced, wheather bought alone or as part of a package, this could be big.
Just been looking around the 'net about BB subscriber numbers...
The UK now has 15 million fixed landline BB users, excluding DOCSIS users at 3,936,000 (VM cable).
The Youview target market is 7 million users. Obviously unachievable, as no marketing campaign saturates 100% of the market (7M is the absolute minimum of BB users with DTT Freeview).
Means nothing to be honest. Look at BTV and see how many BT broadband users compared to how many of their customers use BT Vision.
Thats a lot. And, like Sky, it will take time to catch-on.
Because it was something new, people paid their T.v licence and the thought of paying more for more T.V was unheard off in this country.
Paying for T.v now is not a new thing, getting extra content is not a new thing and to be honest on demand is not new.
it will be the younger people that will get You view, the problem is a lot of them have Sky.
Youview has a five year marketing campaign, which all content providers have commited to. So they are clearly in this for the long-haul.
five years is a long time, look at how Channel 5 pulled out and then came back into You View and that was before it is even launched.
You view really need to get a decent amount of people using it after 12 months. Content providers will want to see money being made.
Now...if's, buts and maybe's time...
If say only 25% of the target market get it, thats 1.75 million users, treble the number using Vision.
But not all of them will be using Bt broadband.
If BT, with a minimum of 5M landline BB users and TalkTalk, again just short of 5M users, were to offer boxes as part of their BB deals, or subsidise the cost of a box, this could indeed be massive.
It depends if they can sell the service, I don't mean money wise, i mean if they can make people think it is the thing they need.
It got to offer some advantage to the average Joe that sky don't offer, even if it is for free.
if it is complex to use, a pain in the neck to set up then people will not bother.
Go out and tell people about it and they will come back and ask you if you can get say Sky one or the discovery channels on it, you say no, they will turn around and say what is the use.
BTV was not the best box to set up, with home plugs to plug into wall sockets, have to connect it to the router. Two many wires
the home plugs would not even work in my friends place, we had to drill a hole from the bedroom upstairs where the router is, though the ceiling downstairs and run a Ethernet cable down. the plugs work fine on the same floor mind you
And as for buying a stand-alone box, I personally cannot see it costing anymore than a normal Freeview HD pvr, otherwise it won't sell.
Very true, but if iit costs more to make then they can't sell it for the same price of a normal PVR.
As been said on these forums, you can now pick up Freeview HD PVR for under £200 now.
Remember the HD player war? Toshiba HD vs Bluray HD? £1000 vs £600?
The Tosh HD format fell on it's arse and Bluray won (shades of Betamax/VHS anyone?).
HDDVD was far better than Bluray, for a start the disks was cheaper to make as it used the same system as a normal DVD. Other reasons as well why it was better, just like Betamax was better than VHS.
The 2 main reasons Blu-ray won was
(1) the Sony PS3, it had Blu-ray built in.
(2) sony owns a film studio and part owns another one.
Toshiba had no chance
IF it's sensibly market priced, wheather bought alone or as part of a package, this could be big.
It is not just price, it is if it offers something people want for the price.
the Freesat box a mate got a couple of days ago got a Ethernet port in for BBC Iplayer and ITV player, plus a couple of other things, but I know full well it will never be connected to his router.
HDDVD was far better than Bluray, for a start the disks was cheaper to make as it used the same system as a normal DVD. Other reasons as well why it was better.QUOTE]
the Freesat box a mate got a couple of days ago got a Ethernet port in for BBC Iplayer and ITV player, plus a couple of other things, but I know full well it will never be connected to his router.
So? And we will all do the same? And how is what your mate does relavant to us, actual users of IPTV?
Sorry, our numbers may be small, but at least we use Vision, and we like what IPTV can offer.
It's not for you, thats clear, but you have no right to tell us it's a poor substitute for Sky, or that it's a poor service.
And what hard facts do you have to back this statement up?
go and ask the younger people if they want Sky or BT vision and they will turn around and ask you what the hell is Bt Vision. younger people may go for You view, because of the Apps, Older people just want to sit down and watch T.V, well I know that is what I want to do, can't be bothered with fiddling around.
Which is not required.
True, but then they will have to buy the box, how many people will pay out £200 or more for another box? Certainly now that it seems that you view may be delayed. I wonder how many people have even heard of you View and know what it is about
if you are going to launch a service then surly it is best to get the word out
Ah, it should use ethernet and electricity via air transport, no plugs required.
It should be wireless or the home plugs they supply should be better. i know my friends house electric cables are a bit weird, but considering that the cheap home plugs I got from Maplins work fine, then so should the one Bt supplies.
Upon what do you compare your comparison?
You never had either.
i never had what?
i have got Blu-ray, it is in a PS3, but it is still blu-ray. i never had HD DVd, but I a mate had one of the first ones he got from Japan when he was on Holiday over there.
Picture quality there is no difference, but there was difference in the additional features. for a start the original blu-ray players could not play normal DVD's, HD DVd players could.
HD DVd disk was cheaper to make due to them being made in the same way as normal DVD's was made.
There are other features that HD DVd had that bluray did not have or came later on
As for having VHs and Betamax, got a betamax in my loft, and i got two VHs recorders. Betamax knocked the spots of VHs and still does.
So in case you missed it, I do have BLu-Ray.
So? And we will all do the same? And how is what your mate does relavant to us, actual users of IPTV?
i am not saying it is, just saying that not everyone is going to plug in a freeview/freesat box into the internet
Sorry, our numbers may be small, but at least we use Vision, and we like what IPTV can offer.
It's not for you, thats clear, but you have no right to tell us it's a poor substitute for Sky, or that it's a poor service.
You keep saying it is not for me, what is not for me? IPTV is something I am interested in and I would love, the sad thing is there is no IPTV in this country that is worth bothering about at the moment and to be honest I think it will be many years before there is.
The closest I get to IPTv at the moment is Iplayer on the Wii or PS3, saying that I did watch a film from Lovefilm on the PS3 as they allowed me to watch online for two hours. worked well, very well, sadly they are pretty limited on content as well.
BT Vision is a poor substitute for Sky, there is no getting away from that, the problem is that sky is awful as well.
Shows how bad pay T.v is in this country to be honest, full of repeats and old rubbish.
Comments
never let the truth get in the way of a good argument eh..?
disregarding the other nonsense and just going by YOUR ridiculous comparison, the cheapest Sky Broadband deal is actually free..gratis... which immediately knocks off £12.50 from noises' Sky cost and makes it cheaper for 4 yes 4 sports channels!
or...
compare like for like...sky unlimited broadband vs bt unlimited broadband.
the figures again favour Sky.
We've 'discussed' this before and you also missed the broadband cost out of that too.
can't think why....
Like for this, like for that, tat-for tit, tit-for-tat.
Can we all just please stop.
Of course it isn't like for like because there is no such thing with this sort of comparison.
I have never seen any figures on how much bandwidth the 'average' household uses, but I was on option 1 for 2 years and only once got anywhere near 10gb. 40gb doesn't seem at all limited to me. In fact, I'd like to bet that most people on Sky's 'unlimited' broadband package would probably find 40gb more than adequate and probably never get anywhere near exceeding it. Sky are only pushing unlimited broadband because of there new Anytime service, but of course you don't need unlimited broadband to use the BT Vision on demand service, because the bandwidth doesn't come out of your monthly allowance.
On Sky you do get 4 sports channels, but on BT you also get ESPN for free, for which you have to pay extra on Sky. If you are going to try to tell me that Sky Sports 3 and 4 are better than ESPN then you really are having a laugh.
24 months isn't a biggy for me, it races past; maybe it's my age.
what you use, i use or joe bloggs uses is irrelevant to the point at hand, as is you guessing what the average useage is. The future is the cloud, which means more bandwith.
you said..
'cheapest possible option for each provider' so I went by your rules and proved you were wrong.
Would I say SS3 and 4 are better than ESPN? of course I would, I can't see anything on there I would want to watch regularly, that isn't covered on SS.
on a separate 'real world' note.
My parents now pay less for Sky TV,line rental and broadband than they did with BT for just the line and broadband.
Free PVR (a first for them!) and £50 M&S vouchers.
where do you think the value is for them?
nice comeback when your 'side' has lost the argument.
PM me when you have something relevant to say.
PM YOU?,
No, Never.
I've been told about you. From many different sources.
Your Very pro Sky, (and nowt wrong with that).
I like Vision.
And am looking forward to Youview, (and theres nowt wrong with that either).
We have nothing to agree upon.
we don't have to agree but I do approve of your tacit acceptance of your lack of relevance.
Whilst we wait for a Youview service that has the potential to turn on demand TV on its head?
Looking forward to this, and the future developments of content makers and providers.
Maybe it was too good and would show up the You view specs, so where did you here this from?
Umm.
i presume it will be a Freeview box that Humax will bring out first then.
In fairness, it was you who started the pricing breakdown posts, apparently in response to a comment from Noise...
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=46725732&postcount=459
But you can get pretty close to it and this is what people do when they compare products. I know sure well it is what I do.
But times are a changing, people will use more bandwidth, you imagine you got what you call a standard household, 2 parents, to kids, they will all be doing their own thing, watching Iplayer and any other catch up service, watching You tube. Downloading music, streaming music. uploading stuff to social networks.
It all adds up.
A friend of mine and her daughter, with only two of them in the house uses more than 50Gb some months.
Sky would do the same thing as well if they did not have unlimited.
Not every one with sky Broadband have Sky TV, most of them would, but I expect there are people who don't.
As a Stand alone broadband Service Sky Broadband is a great price, It is cheaper than what I am paying for mine,
If I changed to Sky broadband and talk I would save about £13 a month if not more.
but i am happy with what I got and don't really want to bundle things up
i have no idea, I don't watch any of them, every time I see adverts for Sky sports and ESPN it is all about football.
i just had a look at what is on today on all five channels and to be honest none of them are to my taste, but then I am not a sporty person.
They all look as bad as each other, certainly not worth the high cost that sky or BTV charge for them.
It depends how tight the contract is, if you yhave some movement in the contract then it is not so bad, but if you got no movement in changing something in the package then it can be a problem.
I gave up with long contracts, the 18 months one I had with BT broadband anywhere was far too long. My mobile phone started to play up after 15 months and Bt would not do anything about it, I would have to pay for a new phone or carry on as I was.
If I was in a 12 month contract I could have changed to another network and told them to stuff it. they changed their tune when my contract was up I can tell you, but it was too late then
My broadband got no contract, never did,
My mobile have got 12 months, but that is only sim only and cost me a tenner a month, I think I could still afford that even if I lost my job.
Mobile is ending in April next year I think, but for a tenner a month for 300Mins of calls I will stick with them.
My Home is 12 months, but no silly re-newable contract that Bt seems to love. so after 12 months, that is it.
With long contracts they know they got you, get you in with a cheap deal and that is it, they have got you.
Sky is the same, they keep putting their prices up, which is why I left them years ago, or one of the reason, they put their price up and yet offered nothing new, still the same old repeats. Then they had the cheek to offer me a free Sky+ box, i asked him why would I want a box to record repeats?
I liked Top up TV, but their prices are too high for what they offer and my TUTV box hard drive is too small to make any use of it.
for the amount of T.v I watch I can get more than enough stuff from Freeview on my PVr.
and you are Anti Sky and pro vision, so you two are a match made in heaven
Myself, i not can see both and and points from both platforms.
the worst part with Sky is that it is part of Murdochs empire
Now don't faint with Shock, but I agree.
That is what will make or break you view as long as they can get the hardware right.
Still a bit worried about it being Linux based, they got to make it secure.
There are tons of if's and buts.
Getting Humax on board is a good thing, getting Talk Talk is not such a good thing as long as all Talk Talk does is provide a box to it's customers and don't anything else then it may work
Price is another problem, how much will this box cost for people that are not using Talk Talk or BT, if it costs a lot more than a normal Freeview Hd PVR then it could die there and then.
I still don't think it will get people changing from sky in droves, but if Bt offers it for free then people may use it as a second box.
Very little info on it at the moment, people have no idea what it is, most people have not even heard about it. they need to get known before launch, months before launch, they need to make people know about what it will offer and how much it will change their t.v viewing.
They have not done that, they have not even got a date when it will be launched. you need to plan ahead, they need to tell people there their is a new super duper box coming out early next year, so people who are thinking about getting a new Freesat or Freeview HD PVr now may say, we will wait and see what this new box is like.
Once people have already paid a couple of hundred quid out this year for a new box they are not going to pay out again next year unless they have plenty of money.
Heres where I got that from -
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=45558060&postcount=4
Bob Cat is a member of the Humax Team, and from what I can gather, quite high up in the organisation.
The UK now has 15 million fixed landline BB users, excluding DOCSIS users at 3,936,000 (VM cable).
The Youview target market is 7 million users. Obviously unachievable, as no marketing campaign saturates 100% of the market (7M is the absolute minimum of BB users with DTT Freeview).
Thats a lot. And, like Sky, it will take time to catch-on.
Youview has a five year marketing campaign, which all content providers have commited to. So they are clearly in this for the long-haul.
Now...if's, buts and maybe's time...
If say only 25% of the target market get it, thats 1.75 million users, treble the number using Vision.
If BT, with a minimum of 5M landline BB users and TalkTalk, again just short of 5M users, were to offer boxes as part of their BB deals, or subsidise the cost of a box, this could indeed be massive.
And as for buying a stand-alone box, I personally cannot see it costing anymore than a normal Freeview HD pvr, otherwise it won't sell.
Remember the HD player war? Toshiba HD vs Bluray HD? £1000 vs £600?
The Tosh HD format fell on it's arse and Bluray won (shades of Betamax/VHS anyone?).
IF it's sensibly market priced, wheather bought alone or as part of a package, this could be big.
So it comes from someone who says they work for humax, which no doubt is true, but then it may not be.
i think most people knows that You View if it lives up to the hype is a new way of using a set top box, in this country anyway.
As I said before, i like Humax and I am certain if anyone can pull this off they can. I just hope they make sure the box works before it is launched.
Means nothing to be honest. Look at BTV and see how many BT broadband users compared to how many of their customers use BT Vision.
Because it was something new, people paid their T.v licence and the thought of paying more for more T.V was unheard off in this country.
Paying for T.v now is not a new thing, getting extra content is not a new thing and to be honest on demand is not new.
it will be the younger people that will get You view, the problem is a lot of them have Sky.
five years is a long time, look at how Channel 5 pulled out and then came back into You View and that was before it is even launched.
You view really need to get a decent amount of people using it after 12 months. Content providers will want to see money being made.
But not all of them will be using Bt broadband.
It depends if they can sell the service, I don't mean money wise, i mean if they can make people think it is the thing they need.
It got to offer some advantage to the average Joe that sky don't offer, even if it is for free.
if it is complex to use, a pain in the neck to set up then people will not bother.
Go out and tell people about it and they will come back and ask you if you can get say Sky one or the discovery channels on it, you say no, they will turn around and say what is the use.
BTV was not the best box to set up, with home plugs to plug into wall sockets, have to connect it to the router. Two many wires
the home plugs would not even work in my friends place, we had to drill a hole from the bedroom upstairs where the router is, though the ceiling downstairs and run a Ethernet cable down. the plugs work fine on the same floor mind you
Very true, but if iit costs more to make then they can't sell it for the same price of a normal PVR.
As been said on these forums, you can now pick up Freeview HD PVR for under £200 now.
HDDVD was far better than Bluray, for a start the disks was cheaper to make as it used the same system as a normal DVD. Other reasons as well why it was better, just like Betamax was better than VHS.
The 2 main reasons Blu-ray won was
(1) the Sony PS3, it had Blu-ray built in.
(2) sony owns a film studio and part owns another one.
Toshiba had no chance
It is not just price, it is if it offers something people want for the price.
the Freesat box a mate got a couple of days ago got a Ethernet port in for BBC Iplayer and ITV player, plus a couple of other things, but I know full well it will never be connected to his router.
And what hard facts do you have to back this statement up?
Which is not required.
Ah, it should use ethernet and electricity via air transport, no plugs required.
go and ask the younger people if they want Sky or BT vision and they will turn around and ask you what the hell is Bt Vision. younger people may go for You view, because of the Apps, Older people just want to sit down and watch T.V, well I know that is what I want to do, can't be bothered with fiddling around.
True, but then they will have to buy the box, how many people will pay out £200 or more for another box? Certainly now that it seems that you view may be delayed. I wonder how many people have even heard of you View and know what it is about
if you are going to launch a service then surly it is best to get the word out
It should be wireless or the home plugs they supply should be better. i know my friends house electric cables are a bit weird, but considering that the cheap home plugs I got from Maplins work fine, then so should the one Bt supplies.
i never had what?
i have got Blu-ray, it is in a PS3, but it is still blu-ray. i never had HD DVd, but I a mate had one of the first ones he got from Japan when he was on Holiday over there.
Picture quality there is no difference, but there was difference in the additional features. for a start the original blu-ray players could not play normal DVD's, HD DVd players could.
HD DVd disk was cheaper to make due to them being made in the same way as normal DVD's was made.
There are other features that HD DVd had that bluray did not have or came later on
As for having VHs and Betamax, got a betamax in my loft, and i got two VHs recorders. Betamax knocked the spots of VHs and still does.
So in case you missed it, I do have BLu-Ray.
i am not saying it is, just saying that not everyone is going to plug in a freeview/freesat box into the internet
Sorry, our numbers may be small, but at least we use Vision, and we like what IPTV can offer.
You keep saying it is not for me, what is not for me? IPTV is something I am interested in and I would love, the sad thing is there is no IPTV in this country that is worth bothering about at the moment and to be honest I think it will be many years before there is.
The closest I get to IPTv at the moment is Iplayer on the Wii or PS3, saying that I did watch a film from Lovefilm on the PS3 as they allowed me to watch online for two hours. worked well, very well, sadly they are pretty limited on content as well.
BT Vision is a poor substitute for Sky, there is no getting away from that, the problem is that sky is awful as well.
Shows how bad pay T.v is in this country to be honest, full of repeats and old rubbish.
I guess that says it all.
Cheers.
you just pick what you want, you just don't read , only what you want to read.
Oh well, you carry on with your over price naff service, I have no idea why I am bothered.
i know i get a very good service for the money I pay, and i got more things to do with my time than spend hours in front of a T.V.
Talking of which, video is rendered and ready to go onto DVd, but can wait until tomorrow, going to bed now.
Oh yes, just to repeat again, I do have blu-ray. and i can read, strange thing that reading, you should try it sometime and find out more information
Good night
I don't bicker that much with the missus lol
Ooh!
Aren't you me?
Ha ha ha!
Remember that?
Just read this artical on techradar about the state of the IPTV market...
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/internet-tv-a-fragmented-future-917083
And it's a mess!
A total tits-up, balls-up, arse-ove tit, unfocused attempt at delivering good TV over IP.
And know ones getting it right.
I won't spoil it for you by stating what the artical says, but it's very, very interesting.
What I will say is thank God we've got Youview coming.