Freesat box installed, bye bye Rupert Murdoch!

macman

Sky+ does nothing that a Freeview or Freesat PVR won't do.

davemurgatroyd

macman wrote: »

Sky+ does nothing that a Freeview or Freesat PVR won't do.

Except receive Five HD on HD boxes. Also the FTV channels on satellite are not receivable on freesat but are on Freeview. All three platforms have different channel lineups - Freeview, freesat and FreesatFromSky. So there is a lot that some will do that others don't. So your statement is false without conditions.

macman

davemurgatroyd wrote: »

Except receive Five HD on HD boxes. Also the FTV channels on satellite are not receivable on freesat but are on Freeview. All three platforms have different channel lineups - Freeview, freesat and FreesatFromSky. So there is a lot that some will do that others don't. So your statement is false without conditions.

i was clearly referring to the PVR capabilities, not to the channel line up.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that Sky invented the PVR and that you have to pay Sky to have PVR facilities.

reduceditem

My Humax box has more bells and whistles than my Dad's Sky+ box in terms of functionality.

d123

reduceditem wrote: »

My Humax box has more bells and whistles than my Dad's Sky+ box in terms of functionality.

Just a pity it doesn't really compare in terms of channels received.

macman

Slight difference. Humax don't control the channel line up. Sky do.

d123

macman wrote: »

Slight difference. Humax don't control the channel line up. Sky do.

I don't see the relevance, i would make the analogy of a bicycle (the Humax) and a car (Sky) and needing to go from Newcastle to London.

The car (Sky) might cost more, but it's a damn sight more convenient.

ukcarper

I really don’t understand all the arguments you look at the services available to you see what channel line up suites you the best and if you think it’s worth the cost you go with that. I’m use freesat, as I don’t think the extra channels I would get from sky are worth the money other people do and that’s their choice.

d123

ukcarper wrote: »

I really don’t understand all the arguments you look at the services available to you see what channel line up suites you the best and if you think it’s worth the cost you go with that. I’m use freesat, as I don’t think the extra channels I would get from sky are worth the money other people do and that’s their choice.

Exactly right, and well put.

The issue isn't with those who feel freesat is sufficient for their viewing needs, it's those who seem to think it's directly comparable to the basic (paid for) Sky service. Its obviously not, but some seem to be so anti-Sky/Murdoch they try and portray it as such.

reduceditem

d123 wrote: »

Just a pity it doesn't really compare in terms of channels received.

Not really a pity from where I'm sitting.


I'm happy paying nothing to receive plenty of good telly via BBC, ITV, FilmFour, etc. I always end up recording more stuff than I have time to watch, so can't see any point in having more channels. Only other thing that would ever interest me is the Sky Sports for footie and I can always add that if I want.