Sky Boxes

[themelon]

Being tied to Sky is actually a bad thing really it destroys viewers choice..........once they have shelled out £200 on a box, even if they recieve crap service they will be less inclined to switch providers due to them ending up with a £200 door stop, they are more likely to sufffer which is exactly what Sky want, people to be tied into a 'contract' until the £200 box dies or devalues sufficiently for it not to matter which is £800 of subs income for Sky if you say a box life on average in 2 years with a subscriber on Sky World (In reality to most people a £200 box should last longer than that, so thats even more than £800 income for Sky)

Cable also now has an Interactive system that works.......certainally on Bromley it works a treat, and im sure this time next year it will be working well on Langley, in fact it already is in a lot of cases.

Also with the Cable Phone Service the basic line rental is now cheaper at £9.50 this allows the use of the best value services like http://www.call18866.co.uk which are now becoming available on Cable due to BT putting all their customers on to option 1.........even if they dont want to use it...meaning CPS and Indirect services look less attractive.......anti competative move by BT not sure how they get away with it. Now would be a good time for ntl to allow more Indirect Providers to use their network.

http://www.mgsuk.co.uk/tvshow.AVI

Im not so sure about the Murdoch ideas either, ive never met him so cant judge him as a person but what he has done is generally bad, Now the gutter press like the Sun can build people up and knock people down, they can also change Public Opinion if someone in government upsets them.....of course some of that is down to the Sheep like behaviour of the majority of the British Public but should the press have the power to make and break careers, win elections and even bring people to their deaths prematurely (in the case of photographic harrasment like Princess Diana)

Also not convinced about providing the channel selection to the British Public, Sky actually do virtually nothing except design software for set top boxes, they use third party uplinks, third party Satellites, the majority of Channels on Satellite are from a third party, UKTV, Flextech, Discovery, BBC, CH4 etc.

Most of the channels on Satellite that are free and not available on Cable are there because Sky dont own the Satellites, The Satellite companies (Eutelsat and SES Astra) are free to rent out space to whoever they wish...........if you were to have a Free DSAT reciever (not even sure if such a thing exists in the UK due to Skys monopoly, I know analogue did) You would still recieve these free extra channels and Free Interactive Services.

I suppose Sky have made sure that live football is only available to those who wish or are able to pay ridiculous amounts for it, they can also pay big bucks for the latest films, and imported series from America as well as producing Ibiza/Greece/Blah Uncovered Brit Drunks abroad programs, and awful low budget drama/soaps like Mile High and Dream Team.

[etccarmageddon]

in my opinion the people who have destroyed "viewers choice" are the people at the top of NTL who bleed it dry and mismanaged it so now they are in a position to be unable to invest in their own PVR solution.

if SKY didnt have their PVR system then there would be less competition and therefore less motivation for NTL and others to come up with their own solutions.

[paulyoung666]

i dont get it , if you choose sky then you are tied to sky but with more choice than ntl will ever provide , sorry i just dont get the argument here

[gazzae]

I'm very happy to be tied to sky with my lovely Sky+ box.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

i dont get it , if you choose sky then you are tied to sky but with more choice than ntl will ever provide , sorry i just dont get the argument here

There isn't one-'TheMelon' is arguing a point that isn't there (as you have said!)

All said & done-whatever it is that Sky are doing, they are doing it well-interactive works in all parts of the country, & Sky + is an absolute gem.

Neither of which ntl/TW can offer, so there really is no argument/comparison.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Neil

There isn't one-'TheMelon' is arguing a point that isn't there (as you have said!)

All said & done-whatever it is that Sky are doing, they are doing it well-interactive works in all parts of the country, & Sky + is an absolute gem.

Neither of which ntl/TW can offer, so there really is no argument/comparison.

i didnt think there was a valid argument , now it has been confirmed , thank you

Originally Posted by Neil

There isn't one-'TheMelon' is arguing a point that isn't there (as you have said!)

Sorry, but I think there is a point there. If you're going to fork out £200, you're less likely to chuck the service over later.

Ok, so you can sell it if you want, but a quick look on e-bay suggests their second hand price is around fifty quid.

At least with NTL you get the box for "free" (as much as "free" means anything in this sort of game!)

Frankly, if you ask me, what's *actually* destroying choice is both NTL and Sky's habit of selling "programme packages" because if there's *one* channel you want, you have to buy the *whole* package.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, but I think there is a point there. If you're going to fork out £200, you're less likely to chuck the service over later. .

You're right-I was just trying to make a point that 'TheMelon' was really comparing apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by Graham

Ok, so you can sell it if you want, but a quick look on e-bay suggests their second hand price is around fifty quid.

Hardly worth the aggro now, let alone in 2 years time!

Originally Posted by Graham

At least with NTL you get the box for "free" (as much as "free" means anything in this sort of game!)

No such thing as a free lunch is there!?

Originally Posted by Graham

Frankly, if you ask me, what's *actually* destroying choice is both NTL and Sky's habit of selling "programme packages" because if there's *one* channel you want, you have to buy the *whole* package.

Sky have no control over what ntl/TW bundle as TV packages AFAIK m8-all that happens is that ntl/TW pay a figure for each channel they broadcast (ok so I simplified it a bit, but you get what I mean!)

What happens after that is down to ntl/TW.

[themelon]

Originally Posted by Neil

There isn't one-'TheMelon' is arguing a point that isn't there (as you have said!)

All said & done-whatever it is that Sky are doing, they are doing it well-interactive works in all parts of the country, & Sky + is an absolute gem.

Neither of which ntl/TW can offer, so there really is no argument/comparison.

There is an argument, why should you be tied to Sky? Especially if you consider the service you are getting to be poor..........believe it or not there are many people who think the service they get from Sky is poor....You get a £200 box and recieve a crap service you are stuck with it, even if you wanted to move to cable or even DTT your Sky+ PVR would be an expensive door stop. Better to get a better product like TiVO and you can use that on any platform Cable, Satellite or DTT.......Of course TiVo naturally failed in the UK, Sky was put in charge of Advertising!! knowing its own product was around the corner it decided to forget about marketing for a while, and save its money for a product which locks users into its own service....exactly what they want. There is no choice thats a bad thing, Skys anti competative dealings and breaking of rules has meant practically all competition has been erased, and they can more or less do what they want.

Lets not forget that Sky have had a massive head start on developing Interactive content. Mainly because they decided to break the original conditions of a Satellite Broadcast licence.

Many years ago I was originally a BSB Subscriber. BSB won the first ever Satellite Multi Channel licence in the UK, the conditions for such a Licence were that broadcasts should be in the superior DMAC Standard, and the broadcasters should use their own Satellites.

The Sky came along, got a licence and some how ignored and got away with ignoring government conditions for a licence, BSB who spent vast amounts of money on their own Satellites and DMAC decoders were in financial trouble.....Along come Sky do away with BSBs superior service and sell off the Satellites within two years.

The Cable companies also fell foul to a bad government idea, franchising, Instead of one national company running the fibre network they had 12 or more small companies running local franchises, these small companies had little capital to start with....spent what the had on networks using low budget components. The companies fell into debt were brough out by bigger companies who took on even larger amounts of debt which has crippled them for many years. Only now slowly but surely they are beginning to sort things out. Ok ntl may have some idiots at the top but most big comapnies do, BT, Sky, British Gas etc.

So essentially Sky is a parasite who rents third part satellite space and uses a third party (ntl:broadcasting) for their uplinks.

[mdean]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

I don't know what you have against Rupert Murdoch he is actually a nice guy,

As someone once said (Wimbledon is on)- You cannot be serious. The guy is a monopolistic threat to free trade and democracy who was only too happy to wreck lives to line his own pocket.

A random serch on good ole google produces the following sources which explain it all nice and slow

This one seems the most detailed
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-diges...a/murdoch.html

this is funniest
http://guerrillacampaign.com/foxgroupsucks.htm

and these are for interest

http://www.bloggerheads.com/bbc/
http://www.alternet.org/story/15949
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...Rupert_Murdoch

Nice guy --- my eye

(PS he is so meritocratic the top jobs go to his kids)

[Neil]

Originally Posted by themelon

There is an argument

Oh good.

Originally Posted by themelon

why should you be tied to Sky? Especially if you consider the service you are getting to be poor..........

You shouldn't-simple as. If the 'service' you are getting from anyone is rubbish, then vote with your feet & go elsewhere. A contract works 2 ways & is also there to protect customers.

I'm sure Sky use the old 'you can't leave as you under a 12 month contract' to lots of people (Orange tried it with me after 5 continual months of foul ups), but you didn't sign for poor service, so you can leave (generically speaking)

Originally Posted by themelon

believe it or not there are many people who think the service they get from Sky is poor....

I believe it.

Originally Posted by themelon

You get a £200 box and recieve a crap service you are stuck with it

No you're not-see my comment above.

Originally Posted by themelon

even if you wanted to move to cable or even DTT your Sky+ PVR would be an expensive door stop.

Which they would be refunding me for if the service was not 'as described' or the box 'was not fit for the purpose it was designed for'

Originally Posted by themelon

Better to get a better product like TiVO and you can use that on any platform Cable, Satellite or DTT.......

And when your Tivo box goes wrong continually?

Originally Posted by themelon

Of course TiVo naturally failed in the UK, Sky was put in charge of Advertising!! knowing its own product was around the corner it decided to forget about marketing for a while, and save its money for a product which locks users into its own service....exactly what they want.

I don't know enough about the Sky/Tivo scenario, so can't comment.

Originally Posted by themelon

There is no choice thats a bad thing, Skys anti competative dealings and breaking of rules has meant practically all competition has been erased, and they can more or less do what they want.

Nothing to do with the fact that they simply offer a superior product then?

Originally Posted by themelon

Lets not forget that Sky have had a massive head start on developing Interactive content. Mainly because they decided to break the original conditions of a Satellite Broadcast licence.

Not forgetting the massive investment that they undertook in their upcoming products.

[mdean]

Originally Posted by themelon

There is an argument, why should you be tied to Sky? Especially if you consider the service you are getting to be poor..........believe it or not there are many people who think the service they get from Sky is poor....You get a £200 box and recieve a crap service you are stuck with it, even if you wanted to move to cable or even DTT your Sky+ PVR would be an expensive door stop. Better to get a better product like TiVO and you can use that on any platform Cable, Satellite or DTT.......Of course TiVo naturally failed in the UK, Sky was put in charge of Advertising!! knowing its own product was around the corner it decided to forget about marketing for a while, and save its money for a product which locks users into its own service....exactly what they want. There is no choice thats a bad thing, Skys anti competative dealings and breaking of rules has meant practically all competition has been erased, and they can more or less do what they want.

Lets not forget that Sky have had a massive head start on developing Interactive content. Mainly because they decided to break the original conditions of a Satellite Broadcast licence.

Many years ago I was originally a BSB Subscriber. BSB won the first ever Satellite Multi Channel licence in the UK, the conditions for such a Licence were that broadcasts should be in the superior DMAC Standard, and the broadcasters should use their own Satellites.

The Sky came along, got a licence and some how ignored and got away with ignoring government conditions for a licence, BSB who spent vast amounts of money on their own Satellites and DMAC decoders were in financial trouble.....Along come Sky do away with BSBs superior service and sell off the Satellites within two years.

The Cable companies also fell foul to a bad government idea, franchising, Instead of one national company running the fibre network they had 12 or more small companies running local franchises, these small companies had little capital to start with....spent what the had on networks using low budget components. The companies fell into debt were brough out by bigger companies who took on even larger amounts of debt which has crippled them for many years. Only now slowly but surely they are beginning to sort things out. Ok ntl may have some idiots at the top but most big comapnies do, BT, Sky, British Gas etc.

So essentially Sky is a parasite who rents third part satellite space and uses a third party (ntl:broadcasting) for their uplinks.

Totally correct -but the "Oh sky+ is lovely brigade" do not want to hear

[Neil]

Originally Posted by mdean

Totally correct -but the "Oh sky+ is lovely brigade" do not want to hear

I've heard/read it, but it doesn't change my opinion that Sky/Sky + is superior to cable DTV.

[themelon]

Originally Posted by Neil

I've heard/read it, but it doesn't change my opinion that Sky/Sky + is superior to cable DTV.

But of course everyone has different opinions

[Neil]

Originally Posted by themelon

But of course everyone has different opinions

Correct...

So-in "your opinion", how is cable DTV superior to Sky/Sky +?