[stud u like]

The evil empire always has you by the short and curlies if you use their equipment.

[DariaM]

Why on earth would you wish to demean yourself by retaining BskyB.... other Broadband Providers are available, and in any event, media may be delivered through an alternative subscription service or simply downloaded on demand at no cost, bypassing BskyB altogether, within a few hours of the TV show premiering in the US.

[ProDave]

Originally Posted by davemurgatroyd

Incidentally the charging a subscription for recording functions was started by Tivo and Sky copied that model.

Thankfully freeview and freesat have both BROKEN that model so it has been possible for a long time to pause and record free television

Shame Sky are stuck in the dark ages. Many of us thought when freesat launched sky would see sense and allow non subscribers to record the free channels, but sadly not.

[sodafountain]

Originally Posted by ProDave

Shame Sky are stuck in the dark ages. Many of us thought when freesat launched sky would see sense and allow non subscribers to record the free channels, but sadly not.

But what advantage would Sky gain from this?

They are not stupid, don't know how many people pay just the £10, buy if they allowed it for everyone for free, they would instantly lose all these £10 subscribers, as well as any subscriber that pays £20 based on the fact they don't want to pay £10 to record free channels, and decide t pay £20 to keep the box working and keep the recording feature.

In other words, I expect Sky only see a financial loss if they did this, so why would they?

[peter05]

Originally Posted by sodafountain

But what advantage would Sky gain from this?

They are not stupid, don't know how many people pay just the £10, buy if they allowed it for everyone for free, they would instantly lose all these £10 subscribers, as well as any subscriber that pays £20 based on the fact they don't want to pay £10 to record free channels, and decide t pay £20 to keep the box working and keep the recording feature.

In other words, I expect Sky only see a financial loss if they did this, so why would they?

No advantage what's so ever, sky are only interested in taking as much money with as little cost to themselves from there custumers, it is as always the UK puplic that loses out with sky;
FREESAT could have made there boxes so that people had to pay to record programs , But they did not That's why so many people love FREESAT

[sodafountain]

Originally Posted by peter05

No advantage what's so ever, sky are only interested in taking as much money with as little cost to themselves from there custumers, it is as always the UK puplic that loses out with sky;
FREESAT could have made there boxes so that people had to pay to record programs , But they did not That's why so many people love FREESAT

I have never read such a biased load of rubbish in my life.

Tell me, how could a FREE service charge for recording if they had wanted to?

And yes, Sky is there to make money, as are most corporate organisations, but they can only make money if people ae willing to pay them, which it appears they are, so they can't be doing much wrong.

At the end of the day, and you might find this hard to understand, Freesat is only as good as the channels on it, and if people want something that's not on there, then Freesat is no good for them. Simple as that really.

[peter05]

Originally Posted by sodafountain

And yes, Sky is there to make money, as are most corporate organisations, but they can only make money if people ae willing to pay them, which it appears they are, so they can't be doing much wrong.

.

It would seem from reading this thread and some other's on sky's forum's That a lot of people are not happy to just pay sky what they charge,

If every body was happy to pay sky, There would not be thread's like this one, so may be sky are doing something wrong

[sodafountain]

Originally Posted by peter05

It would seem from reading this thread and some other's on sky's forum's That a lot of people are not happy to just pay sky what they charge,

If every body was happy to pay sky, There would not be thread's like this one, so may be sky are doing something wrong

Believe it or not, in society, you will not please everyone, and there will always be people who will complain, people who want a better deal than anyone else, and so on.

Yes, there are a few threads here about people not happy, then again, how many are true customers, and how many are just trolls and the like that post for fun, and how many are grinding an axe because of a problem they had once, and feel the need to keep turning the screws?

At the end of the day, they have over 10 million subscribers, yet i do not see even 1% of those customers posting here complaining, not even 1% of 1%, so i don't think Sky are that worried, really, get a grip.

[peter05]

I've got a grip, I was just pointing out that not every one thinks sky is sold at a fair price which you seem to agree with me

ps I agree that a lot of people like sky, that's fine but it is not all

[big_hard_lad]

Originally Posted by DariaM

Why on earth would you wish to demean yourself by retaining BskyB.... other Broadband Providers are available, and in any event, media may be delivered through an alternative subscription service or simply downloaded on demand at no cost, bypassing BskyB altogether, within a few hours of the TV show premiering in the US.

So illegally you mean? Great suggestion.

Just as well everyone isn't like you, otherwise the shows that you love enough to download only a few hours after they première, wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by peter05

I've got a grip, I was just pointing out that not every one thinks sky is sold at a fair price which you seem to agree with me

ps I agree that a lot of people like sky, that's fine but it is not all

No offence, but having read a lot of your posts recently, a grip is one thing you do not have.

You also seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Sky doesn't actually have a "fair price". What's the "fair price"? Other than a number that you just pull out of the air that you think is "fair". Sky set the price, the market decides whether they want to pay that price. If the market doesn't, nobody buys Sky and they must lower their price or g out of business. If the market does (which evidently it does), then people pay it. It's quite simple really.

Maybe you should stick to posting "FREESAT is FREE" propaganda every 2 minutes, instead of the economics.

[methodyguy]

Originally Posted by peter05

No advantage what's so ever, sky are only interested in taking as much money with as little cost to themselves from there custumers, it is as always the UK puplic that loses out with sky;
FREESAT could have made there boxes so that people had to pay to record programs , But they did not That's why so many people love FREESAT

No offence but your posts are boring and I do not know the reason why you seem to hate Sky so much when you don't even live in the UK!!!

[methodyguy]

Originally Posted by peter05

I've got a grip, I was just pointing out that not every one thinks sky is sold at a fair price which you seem to agree with me

ps I agree that a lot of people like sky, that's fine but it is not all

Well 10million plus subscribers can't be wrong.

[ktla5]

Originally Posted by peter05

No advantage what's so ever, sky are only interested in taking as much money with as little cost to themselves from there custumers, it is as always the UK puplic that loses out with sky;
FREESAT could have made there boxes so that people had to pay to record programs , But they did not That's why so many people love FREESAT

I know of only one person that has freesat! so maybe not that many people love it, there is as much dross as the 'Sky' channels give you, but minus the quality documentaries etc.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by ktla5

I know of only one person that has freesat! so maybe not that many people love it, there is as much dross as the 'Sky' channels give you, but minus the quality documentaries etc.

Well there's a LOT more people with FSFS (including cancelled Sky contracts), but Freesat sells fairly well, and is doing better than it's projected figures.

A lot depends where you live, it's intended for non-Freeview and Freeview Lite areas mainly.

[peter05]

Just the normal few comming to sky's defence

Having a go at me, really does not help your case, I have been reading these forums for some time now about three years and a few of you all ways have a go at anybody that say anything against sky

[peter05]

Originally Posted by ktla5

I know of only one person that has freesat! so maybe not that many people love it, there is as much dross as the 'Sky' channels give you, but minus the quality documentaries etc.

I know of lots of people who have FREESAT so your comments seem wrong, and all the people I know like FREESAT, and if you think all 140 channel's on FREESAT are dross I feel sorry for you

[davemurgatroyd]

Originally Posted by peter05

Just the normal few comming to sky's defence

Having a go at me, really does not help your case, I have been reading these forums for some time now about three years and a few of you all ways have a go at anybody that say anything against sky

That is rather rich from someone who whenever anyone criticises freesat or points out its shortcomings starts accusing them of hating freesat and agreeing with accusations that they are Sky fans or shareholders. Yes all platforms have their shortcomings and no platform can be perfect for everyone but viewing figures do not lie - according to OFCOMs figures around 5% of UK households choose freesat compared with around 37% choosing Sky subscriptions and probably well over 5% using FreesatFromSky.

[big_hard_lad]

Originally Posted by peter05

Just the normal few comming to sky's defence

Having a go at me, really does not help your case, I have been reading these forums for some time now about three years and a few of you all ways have a go at anybody that say anything against sky

Originally Posted by peter05

I know of lots of people who have FREESAT so your comments seem wrong, and all the people I know like FREESAT, and if you think all 140 channel's on FREESAT are dross I feel sorry for you

Why the caps for "FREESAT"?!

Why no response to my post about what you feel is a "fair price" and how a Sky subscription doesn't actually have a "fair price"?

Nobody claimed all channels on Freesat are dross....but a lot of them are. And, whilst you get the same dross on Sky, at least Sky is supplemented by decent channels, unavailable to Freesat customers, too.

[peter05]

Originally Posted by davemurgatroyd

That is rather rich from someone who whenever anyone criticises freesat or points out its shortcomings starts accusing them of hating freesat and agreeing with accusations that they are Sky fans or shareholders. Yes all platforms have their shortcomings and no platform can be perfect for everyone but viewing figures do not lie - according to OFCOMs figures around 5% of UK households choose freesat compared with around 37% choosing Sky subscriptions and probably well over 5% using FreesatFromSky.

When have I called someone a sky fan or said to anybody who say's any thing bad about FREESAT is a freesat hater that would be silly

That would be name calling and would be silly


Now can we get back on topic please

[SteveMcK]

Originally Posted by peter05

FREESAT could have made there boxes so that people had to pay to record programs ,

They do. Haven't you noticed that PVRs cost more than plain boxes?

[big_hard_lad]

Originally Posted by peter05

When have I called someone a sky fan or said to anybody who say's any thing bad about FREESAT is a freesat hater that would be silly

That would be name calling and would be silly


Now can we get back on topic please

Still no answer to my post, which replied to your post making wild, sweeping statements. Maybe you just don't have an answer

[peter05]

Originally Posted by big_hard_lad

Still no answer to my post, which replied to your post making wild, sweeping statements. Maybe you just don't have an answer

Sorry I did not know you wanted an answer, I think you wanted me to tell you what I thought was a fair price, Well firstly I think you should be able to have a much more varied package where you have one sport but not others, or sports for just one month at a time,
The same with all channels you should be able to choose which channels you want in you package, in other word's one channel from one package and another from another package, so if you wanted just a couple you could have them , but if you wanted every thing you could have every thing.

So the price would vary depending how many sports programes or channels you wanted

Hope that gives you an answer


ps I am watching some great tennis at the moment in HD and free on FREESAT

[Chasing Shadows]

Originally Posted by peter05

sports for just one month at a time,

You can have any channel (including Sky Sports 1 and/or Sky Sports 2) for just one month at a time.

[big_hard_lad]

Originally Posted by peter05

Sorry I did not know you wanted an answer, I think you wanted me to tell you what I thought was a fair price, Well firstly I think you should be able to have a much more varied package where you have one sport but not others, or sports for just one month at a time,
The same with all channels you should be able to choose which channels you want in you package, in other word's one channel from one package and another from another package, so if you wanted just a couple you could have them , but if you wanted every thing you could have every thing.

So the price would vary depending how many sports programes or channels you wanted

Hope that gives you an answer


ps I am watching some great tennis at the moment in HD and free on FREESAT

Several flaws and inaccuracies in your post...

1. I assume you mean that you'd like to be able to subscribe to, say, tennis and cricket, but not football or rugby. Like each sport would have its own channel the way F1 does. This may be possible for the 'bigger' sports, the likes of football and cricket could probably support it. But what about the smaller sports that Sky Sports cover? Likes of Netball, Sailing, etc.? Sky wouldn't make enough selling subscriptions to "Sky Sports Netball", so the sport wouldn't get the coverage or the funding that goes along with it....hardly good news for those sports. IMO, F1 only got its own channel because it was easier to administer in terms of HD subscribers getting access to it without taking Sky Sports. Had they made it only available to Sky Sports subscribers, I dare say that it would have just been shoved onto one of the existing channels, or we'd have got a "Sky Sports 5" in order to cope with the extra content.

2. You can subscribe to any channel package 1 month at a time. Each package has a 30 day notice period, meaning if you take the pack then give your 30 day notice, you will subscribe for 1 month and pay 1 months subscription.

3. 'A la carte' channels won't work for many of the same reasons that al la carte sports can't. There wouldn't be enough subscribers to the smaller, more minority channels, for them to exist.
Also, how much do you suggest they charge 'per channel'? Certainly, a figure in pence wouldn't cut the mustard in terms of making channels viable operations. So it would have to be a few quid. For the sake of example, lets say it would cost £3 a month (completely out of the air) per channel. So I really love documentaries and I want to subscribe to the documentary channels. I want Discovery, Nat Geo, Nat Geo Wild, Animal Planet and Crime. That's £15 a month, by itself, just for 5 channels. Suddenly Entertainment Extra seems excellent value.

There's a very good reason why no Pay TV operator in the world prices their packs a la carte....it's just not viable, for broadcasters, distributors or, indeed, customers.

[sodafountain]

Originally Posted by peter05

ps I am watching some great tennis at the moment in HD and free on FREESAT

That's only because it is deemed that Wimbledon has to be on a FTA channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_C...ignated_Events