"The Wizard" <the_wiz@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KTIHh.47545$Fm2.11925@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "tiscali" <dakeb@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:45ef0167$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>>>
>>> I'm obviously only on day 1 of my 30 day cancellation/refund period, so
>>> they know they could easily lose me.
>>>
>> Phone to cancel, it usually sorts out problems like yours.
>
> True it might still work although I've seen posts on the group where going
> to cancel has ended with Sky saying "Yes sure"
>
> Seems they're worried over something and need all the cash they can.
>

Worst that can happen is you end up with freeview/freesat which is perfectly
adequate.

On 2007-03-07, John Russell <john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "David Taylor" <davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrneurh11.22sp.davidt-news@outcold.yadt.co.uk...
>> On 2007-03-06, Edster <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sky Anytime just means that advertisers or broadcasters can pay Sky to
>>> have whatever programme they choose automatically recorded whether the
>>> viewer wants it or not. Its nothing like the Virgin idea where you
>>> have a list of programmes that you can watch whenever you want.
>>
>> Surely that's identical to Virgin's idea in every way, except the
>> programs are stored on the user's digibox (~80GB) rather than being
>> stored on the broadcaster's equipment (multi-TB?). So you get less
>> choice, but still get to view whatever programs are selected by
>> Sky or Virgin at any time.
>
> Nope! Sat is a Broadcast Medium. Cable offers each user their own link which
> can support users watching what they like, when they like.
>
> SKY Anytime (TV) has to be "broadcast", hence the minuscule content for
> which the reserved 160gb is more than enough.

You miss my point. I understand that technically the services are delivered
in a different way, and as a result they can scale to different capacities.
Sky's service is limited, and will have to remain limited. However, it's
exactly the same service (albeit with limited choice) as Virgin's service --
you can watch what you want (from a selection of available programmes),
when you want.

--
David Taylor

>
> You miss my point. I understand that technically the services are
> delivered
> in a different way, and as a result they can scale to different
> capacities.
> Sky's service is limited, and will have to remain limited. However, it's
> exactly the same service (albeit with limited choice) as Virgin's
> service --
> you can watch what you want (from a selection of available programmes),
> when you want.
>

Limited choice is the crux. You could argue that the normal service is VOD
if you accept your choice is limited to what they want to broadcasts at the
time they chose!

"John Russell" <john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45f13889$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
>> You miss my point. I understand that technically the services are
>> delivered
>> in a different way, and as a result they can scale to different
>> capacities.
>> Sky's service is limited, and will have to remain limited. However, it's
>> exactly the same service (albeit with limited choice) as Virgin's
>> service --
>> you can watch what you want (from a selection of available programmes),
>> when you want.
>>
>
> Limited choice is the crux. You could argue that the normal service is VOD
> if you accept your choice is limited to what they want to broadcasts at
> the time they chose!
>

.....also the SKY+ function allows me to record programs I want to watch
which can then be watched when I want, but that isn't what most people call
VOD either. What SKY is proposing is Forced Recording of programs I "may"
want to watch, restricting the available space on the hard drive for what I
"do" want to watch. It's nothing more than an exercise in appearing
"competitive" so that people like you can think they have VOD when they
don't!

In <45f19042$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, "John Russell"
<john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote:

>....also the SKY+ function allows me to record programs I want to watch
>which can then be watched when I want, but that isn't what most people call
>VOD either. What SKY is proposing is Forced Recording of programs I "may"
>want to watch, restricting the available space on the hard drive for what I
>"do" want to watch.

But they aren't *proposing* to restrict the free space: they have
already done so. It's happened. It's pre-reserved for their use now, if
you have one of the models that will use the service. So you won't
notice any difference.

John Russell wrote:
> "John Russell" <john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45f13889$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>
>>> You miss my point. I understand that technically the services are
>>> delivered
>>> in a different way, and as a result they can scale to different
>>> capacities.
>>> Sky's service is limited, and will have to remain limited. However, it's
>>> exactly the same service (albeit with limited choice)
>>> as Virgin's service --
>>> you can watch what you want (from a selection of available
>>> programmes), when you want.
>>>
>>
>> Limited choice is the crux. You could argue that the normal service
>> is VOD if you accept your choice is limited to what they want to
>> broadcasts at the time they chose!
>>
>
> ....also the SKY+ function allows me to record programs I want to
> watch which can then be watched when I want, but that isn't what most
> people call VOD either. What SKY is proposing is Forced Recording of
> programs I "may" want to watch, restricting the available space on
> the hard drive for what I "do" want to watch. It's nothing more than
> an exercise in appearing "competitive" so that people like you can
> think they have VOD when they don't!

I totally agree. What Sky is offering is certainly not VOD. David's logic is
flawed.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:14:07 +0000, Edster <me@privacy.com> wrote:

>The difference being that Sky's offering will be from live/broadcast
>TV, complete with ad breaks, writing all over the screen, and
>banners/shoutovers telling you about programmes coming next that you
>have already missed.

You seem to know an awful lot about a service that hasn't launched.
I'd lay money that you're talking out of your backside. Again.

--

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:50:41 -0000, "John Russell"
<john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote:

>With SKY you have to take responsibility. Their are stories of people who
>bought the Thomson 160 having it replaced with a cheap 40GB one when it went
>faulty.

Those are either very stupid or very confused people.

--