Freesat or Freeview?

[Deleted User]

almillar wrote: »

The £10 is a fee to allow you to record, AND to view what you've recorded. Nothing to do with them setting up series link etc. Can't you use series link just for reminders anyway? The recording capability is always there, Sky just flick a switch to make your card allow it. Certainly, I was in error if I said that the £10 is to unscramble channels.

Yes, non-subscribers can still use series links to set up reminders.

A very good point.

sandrillita

I live on my own and spend most of the time outside home. At some point I realised that paying a TV license just for my self was beyond silly. Now I catch up with series, news and shows on the internet using the iPlayers or sites like blip.tv where I get to see fairly good content for free :beer:

I am also subscribed to Ilove film so between the TV on internet and my rental films I sort myself out for entertainment at home. I think that if I had a TV it will absorb me and stop me from doing other useful and more productive stuff.

almillar

dave - thanks. I know, I always get those 2 mixed up as I convince myself that if it's free to VIEW it must be unencrypted but that's WRONG! Not splitting hairs at all.
lorcacan & sniggins - yes, they sortof are the same source, but take a very different route to your TV. They use a similar system, but I often find that Freeview channels have less bandwidth than Freesat ones, and this could be the difference you see. I find this problem happens least on BBC channels. You're also using 2 completely different pieces of tuning equipment in your TV. Mine has an excellent Freesat HD tuner, and a rubbish Freeview tuner which gives an over softened picture.

davemurgatroyd

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Sorry mate, but I continue to believe the Sky+ subscription is pure profit for Sky.
Post as much Sky propaganda as you want to in response, it won't change my opinion.
The Sky+ is a machine fully capable of continuing to record after the owner ceases to be a Sky customer. Regardless of any "legality", Sky should not be crippling the functionality of these decoders.
As for not knowing the "actual costs" of broadcasting pay TV, I prefer to cast my attention to the massive profits posted by Sky in the last few years. If Sky absorbed the "cost" of software by providing it freely to ex-subscribers it would merely be a tiny drop in the ocean of profit Sky currently swims in.


Even though this remark was clearly not aimed at me, I think now you really are splitting hairs completely unnecessarily...

Hardly propaganda - facts, but why let facts get in the way of your incorrect statements based purely on your false opinion.

Yes Sky do make a profit on the Sky+ only subscription but as it actually costs them money to provide the function (fact not an incorrect opinion) why should they not make a profit. They are a business not a charity and you are not forced to pay it - there is a viable alternative subscription free recording with freesat PVRs. Again why should Sky continue to give the facility to ex subscribers - BT Vision and Virgin Media do not. At least Sky ex subscribers are left with the equivalent of a freesat receiver whereas VM leave you with nothing.

After many years of loss making heavy initial investments to achieve the business they now have are they not entitled to make a profit?

[Deleted User]

davemurgatroyd wrote: »

They are a business not a charity and you are not forced to pay it - there is a viable alternative subscription free recording with freesat PVRs. Again why should Sky continue to give the facility to ex subscribers - BT Vision and Virgin Media do not. At least Sky ex subscribers are left with the equivalent of a freesat receiver whereas VM leave you with nothing.

After many years of loss making heavy initial investments to achieve the business they now have are they not entitled to make a profit?

I think you must have shares in Sky to speak so glowingly of their sharp business practices, it's especially jarring to read such praise on what is supposed to be a money-saving site.
As for my "false opinion", well it's only "false" in your opinion!:p

davemurgatroyd

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I think you must have shares in Sky to speak so glowingly of their sharp business practices, it's especially jarring to read such praise on what is supposed to be a money-saving site.
As for my "false opinion", well it's only "false" in your opinion!:p

Wrong again - now retired I have never worked for Sky or anyone in the broadcasting industry and have no direct shares in Sky although one or two of my pension funds, ISAs or other investment bonds have almost certainly shares in Sky. I do not like to see inaccurate posts in any forum and post to refute those false statements. Sharp business practices - no merely standard business practice - why should they support ex-subscribers who no longer support them?

Yes this is a money saving forum and if you actually bothered reading it my solution for subscription free satellite PVR is one of the several freesat PVRs available just don't expect businesses to act as charities and continue whingeing when they don't.

sistafromanothermista

sandrillita wrote: »

I live on my own and spend most of the time outside home. At some point I realised that paying a TV license just for my self was beyond silly. Now I catch up with series, news and shows on the internet using the iPlayers or sites like blip.tv where I get to see fairly good content for free :beer:

I am also subscribed to Ilove film so between the TV on internet and my rental films I sort myself out for entertainment at home. I think that if I had a TV it will absorb me and stop me from doing other useful and more productive stuff.

You still need a TV licence to watch TV streamed from internet.....

sniggings

sistafromanothermista wrote: »

You still need a TV licence to watch TV streamed from internet.....

only if the streaming is at the same time as the program is shown on TV.

[Deleted User]

davemurgatroyd wrote: »

Sharp business practices - no merely standard business practice - why should they support ex-subscribers who no longer support them?

Only because the equipment doesn't belong to Sky and so shouldn't be crippled (other than to prevent playback of recordings from subscription channels). I could care less about software "costs", they should be absorbed by Sky.

davemurgatroyd wrote: »

Yes this is a money saving forum and if you actually bothered reading it my solution for subscription free satellite PVR is one of the several freesat PVRs available just don't expect businesses to act as charities and continue whingeing when they don't.

The outlay for a new Freeview/Freesat PVR wouldn't be necessary if the PVR ex-subscribers still have (and own) wasn't crippled. To use your own debating "style", that means your opinion is wrong:p
I'm currently a Sky subscriber, what I resent is having to payout for a Sky+ which will cease to be a PVR if I cease subscribing. If that resentment is seen as "whinging" then so be it.
Anyway, I've said my piece on this subject. Any further discussion of it by you will garner no further replies from me.

Foggster

macman wrote: »

There is nothing to 'install'. Sky to Freesat is a straight box swap. Connect the Hummy, plug it in, it runs the set up.

Dont steal my thunder! :rotfl:

It wasnt that straight forward because I had to add a HDMI cable and remove a scart - I tell you, it was pretty tense at one point. I then had to get the back off the new remote to put the batteries in AND program the handset for TV, Audio and PVR!