Why does Sky Plus have a monthly fee?

Al Vallario · 23 Apr 2006 at 22:57

I have the same setup as Goberpiles316 (Sky+ and Multiroom), although I could have sworn my Sky+ box could record three things at once, or record two and watch another live? Perhaps it's just me going mad

Behemoth said:
I know you don't get owt for nowt in this world, but the amount of money you spend on Sky + is silly. You could buy a nice shiny part for your PC with the money you spend over the year.

That's fair enough; it's up to you (Although you already pay a subscription in the form of a TV license, right?

). I like to think that if you're going to spend £2000 on a top of the range home cinema system, £50/month for the content is reasonable enough. I'd come up with an amusing analogy but I'm all out at the moment

Craig321 · 23 Apr 2006 at 22:58

Jumpingmedic said:
I have sky, and my video is just about ready to conk out for good. So I was thinking about sky plus... only trouble is it seems to cost £10 a month. WHY?!?!!?!? There is no continuous service being provided as far as I can see. All that seems to be going on is Sky holding our chestnuts over the fire because they can encrypt their programs and extort money from us. There are freeview boxes that do the same thing for freeview channels, so clearly there are no ongoing costs for this technology.

Can anyone explain a valid argument for this fee or is it the scam I already believe it to be?

Because you're allowed to watch the program over and over, they need some way to pay for the license that allows that.

Al Vallario · 23 Apr 2006 at 23:01

Craig321 said:
Because you're allowed to watch the program over and over, they need some way to pay for the license that allows that.

Really? I don't actually know the reason myself so I can't come out with a bold, sweeping response but that sounds a bit unlikely to me.

I would have thought it had something to do with the fact that you're receiving two satellite signals instead of one. I'm no satellite expert, but surely that takes up capacity and thus has to be paid for? :confused:

PinkPig · 23 Apr 2006 at 23:06

I don't think there's a valid licensing claim for the money - after all, you're not breaking any law as far as I know by using a conventional VCR or PVR with the Sky box.

I expect the rational for the subscription is that certain recurring services are required - ie. correctly formatted EPG information, signals sent to trigger recordings and so on. Some alternatives (e.g. Tivo) also charge subscriptions.

Craig321 · 23 Apr 2006 at 23:07

Well, yeah, it's the only reason that makes sense to me.

It doesn't require any extra signals or anything, all it is is the Sky box with a hard drive in it with the capability of recording what's on Sky. Also I'm guessing some of the £10 also goes towards the people who maintain the Sky+ menus etc.

Craig.

Behemoth · 23 Apr 2006 at 23:10

Al Vallario said:
I have the same setup as Goberpiles316 (Sky+ and Multiroom), although I could have sworn my Sky+ box could record three things at once, or record two and watch another live? Perhaps it's just me going mad

That's fair enough; it's up to you (Although you already pay a subscription in the form of a TV license, right? ). I like to think that if you're going to spend £2000 on a top of the range home cinema system, £50/month for the content is reasonable enough. I'd come up with an amusing analogy but I'm all out at the moment

Well my parents pay the TV license, I did when I was living in a flat me and the ex were renting, but to be honest I never watched TV that much anyway because I was happyier playing games or listening to music. The only time I'll watch TV is when Doctor Who is on.

Spinal2k2 · 23 Apr 2006 at 23:45

i would like to sk plus, plus as im an exisiting customer i have to pay for the box then pay for it to be installed - no way im paying for this when new customer get the box almost free plus free install - they could at least give existing customers who sub to the premium channels and have multi room a discount for sky plus - but oh no sod customer loylty charge them full whack (im not the only one who thinks this i know a lot of people who are with sky and wont get sky + because of this)

Al Vallario · 23 Apr 2006 at 23:59

Craig321 said:
It doesn't require any extra signals or anything, all it is is the Sky box with a hard drive in it with the capability of recording what's on Sky. Also I'm guessing some of the £10 also goes towards the people who maintain the Sky+ menus etc.

As far as I know a dual LNB has to be installed on the dish and two runs of coax made to the digibox. That's how you can record two things at once or record one whilst watching something else live. Whether or not that takes up any more capacity on Sky's side of the operation I don't know, but that makes sense to me.

It sounds a bit strange that they'd charge £10/month extra to pay for license fees. By that logic you would have to pay a monthly subscription to use a VCR or any other PVR. Doesn't add up to me.

gib786 · 24 Apr 2006 at 00:06

if you get multiroom setup how much does the setup cost, how much extra is it a month and it is possible to multiroom the box up to a pc using some kind of tv/sattelite card?

SoSolid · 24 Apr 2006 at 09:53

Jumpingmedic said:
I don't, and I never will. I barely understand why football is considered a sport...

I guess this was a stupid topic.. my question has already been satisfactorily answered. Sky = Evil gits.

Well you see, they have to run around after the ball which requires extreme fitness and a lot of energy. Only someone who has played will actually know.

kitten_caboodle · 24 Apr 2006 at 10:21

I think the reason they do it that way is because the sky+ service is so unreliable and at times poor - specially after one of the regular updates to the software - (for example, Friday morning it wouldn't work and had lost all of our saved programmes and this is our third box!!) but if they claim that you pay for the channels and the packages, rather than the Sky+ service, then you can't claim anything back when it buggers up because you don't actually pay for it.

iv-tecman · 24 Apr 2006 at 10:48

Talking of ads etc with Sky TV, isn’t it annoying that you pay for the service (overpriced granted) and yet on Sky one you are subject to ads every 15 mins. I cancelled my sky for this very reason. I’d rather just have the free to view channels then pay Sky anymore to watch ads.

So, in a way, granted it was just me Sky lost money due to the ads from me. In the grand scheme of all things profit and airtime for BSB corp me dropping my subscription was nothing. But in a way it’s symbolic. As if I hadn’t been subjected to so many ads I’d not got to mad with the system and perhaps not have cancelled. However the broadcastings were pap anyhow, so I might have anyhow.

And Sky + is a rip. When I cancelled, they tried to offer me the system for free, and then £10 on top each month with half price basic package but I’d have had to take up 12 months. £120 for being able to skip ads, instead of watching them. Now I have to pay more NOT to watch the ads. Erm, nope. Told them where to go.

Von Luck · 24 Apr 2006 at 10:59

Visage · 24 Apr 2006 at 11:15

Jumpingmedic said:
I have sky, and my video is just about ready to conk out for good. So I was thinking about sky plus... only trouble is it seems to cost £10 a month. WHY?!?!!?!? There is no continuous service being provided as far as I can see. All that seems to be going on is Sky holding our chestnuts over the fire because they can encrypt their programs and extort money from us. There are freeview boxes that do the same thing for freeview channels, so clearly there are no ongoing costs for this technology.

Can anyone explain a valid argument for this fee or is it the scam I already believe it to be?

So you think Sky+ just appeared overnight?

That there was no expnse that went into development, testing, production etc?

Visage · 24 Apr 2006 at 11:36

Al Vallario said:
As far as I know a dual LNB has to be installed on the dish and two runs of coax made to the digibox. That's how you can record two things at once or record one whilst watching something else live. Whether or not that takes up any more capacity on Sky's side of the operation I don't know, but that makes sense to me.

It sounds a bit strange that they'd charge £10/month extra to pay for license fees. By that logic you would have to pay a monthly subscription to use a VCR or any other PVR. Doesn't add up to me.

There's no requirement for extra kit at the head end. If you think about it, that would be akin to radio srtations insatlling extra kit to allow people to record things off the radio.....

The extra cost, as i've stated, is down to buying the software to run the PVR facilities in the set top box, plus the fact that they can charge extra for the simple reason that people are willing to pay for it - Sky, aftyer all, are a business....

kitten_caboodle · 24 Apr 2006 at 12:16

Von Luck said:
Advertising on some channels is getting ridiculous. E4 is a case in point - the advert breaks are too frequent, last too long and are inserted at the worst possible points.

For Smallville they actually cut to an advert break once the main titles have played - I mean WTF?

That's an Americanism sneaking over. THey have 4/5 ad breaks in every half hour episode, hence why there's always a bit of action at the beginning (before credits) and end (after credits) (think Friends) because in the States, usually you have a break after that teeny bit first before the credits!! It's unreal. That's why 30 min progs from the USA are only around 22-23 mins long.

CurlyWhirly · 24 Apr 2006 at 15:12

Behemoth said:
HD TV will end being broadcast on freeview, there are plenty of people out there that refuse to pay a sub to watch things on TV, have to say I'm the same.

I think I might stick with Freeview then as like I mentioned before, I don't watch enough TV to justify the cost really.

Behemoth said:
I know you don't get owt for nowt in this world, but the amount of money you spend on Sky + is silly. You could buy a nice shiny part for your PC with the money you spend over the year.

Tell me about it as when I used to have Sky Plus, I was paying around £420 a year not including the TV licence on top! :eek:

malfunkshun · 24 Apr 2006 at 15:26

The only reason I can see for the subscription is to cover the extra CS costs of their, generally, b0rked software updates. You can only watch one channel at a time (although you can watch one record one,record 2 and watch a recording etc). The ability to avoid ads is already quite easy (just record a 15 minute buffer before you start watching then FF through the ads)
Its my opinion that they charge the fee for Sky+ because they can.

Jumpingmedic · 25 Apr 2006 at 20:24

Visage said:
So you think Sky+ just appeared overnight?

That there was no expnse that went into development, testing, production etc?

#

Ahh I see, so as soon as they've recouped their costs it'll be free will it? lol. If there is a backlog cost to recover they should up the cost of the original purchase. A monthly fee requires (as far as i am concerned) an ongoing service that offers value for money.

PinkPig · 25 Apr 2006 at 20:30

Von Luck said:
For Smallville they actually cut to an advert break once the main titles have played - I mean WTF?

That is the most horrible thing about US television - just about every program cuts to the credits immediately after the main titles. You've seen the "preview" before them, they know you're less likely to stop watching than if they have commercials between programs.

Fortunately, even when showing American television over here, they tend to not show the advertising in that particular place, and I think it's a real shame if the trend is creeping over the pond.