On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell"  wrote:

>
>"Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message 
>news:na.baf52b4f9f.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>> In article <4828863b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>> "John Russell"  wrote:
>>
>>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>> news:na.9068ca4f9e.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>> In article <g07ift$316u$1@energise.enta.net>, "Light of Aria"
>>>>  wrote:
>>
>>>>> Sky is "the user".
>>
>>>>> The customer is merely the mug who pays them.
>>
>>>> Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.
>>
>>> What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
>>> have subscription services? Content is King.
>>
>> No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.
>
>Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with Freeview 
>upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of the technology 
>but because of the content. The only reason to get Freesat is if you don't 
>want subscription TV and can't get Freeview. The idea of getting it to shaft 
>SKY won't cross the mind of many people. 

Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over Freeview. You cannot record any
channels using a Sky digibox without paying a subscription so when the Freesat PVRs are available
there will be another big advantage for Freesat.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Nigel Barker"  wrote in message 
news:p0uq24lp1jk0kmqdkspvmtqngm2p4duffe@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell" 
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>news:na.baf52b4f9f.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>> In article <4828863b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>>> "John Russell"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>>> news:na.9068ca4f9e.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>>> In article <g07ift$316u$1@energise.enta.net>, "Light of Aria"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Sky is "the user".
>>>
>>>>>> The customer is merely the mug who pays them.
>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.
>>>
>>>> What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
>>>> have subscription services? Content is King.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.
>>
>>Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with Freeview
>>upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of the technology
>>but because of the content. The only reason to get Freesat is if you don't
>>want subscription TV and can't get Freeview. The idea of getting it to 
>>shaft
>>SKY won't cross the mind of many people.
>
> Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over Freeview. 
> You cannot record any
> channels using a Sky digibox without paying a subscription so when the 
> Freesat PVRs are available
> there will be another big advantage for Freesat.

Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just 
wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your 
talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content. 
Getting the main channels in HD via Sat doesn't improve the content. Most 
people getting SKY do  so because they can see that the main channels are 
now full of dross and want something better.

Content is King. Dross in HD or SD delivered by Cable,Sat or Aerial is still 
dross.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:58:22 +0100, "John Russell"  wrote:

>
>"Nigel Barker"  wrote in message 
>news:p0uq24lp1jk0kmqdkspvmtqngm2p4duffe@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell" 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>>news:na.baf52b4f9f.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>> In article <4828863b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>>>> "John Russell"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:na.9068ca4f9e.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>>>> In article <g07ift$316u$1@energise.enta.net>, "Light of Aria"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Sky is "the user".
>>>>
>>>>>>> The customer is merely the mug who pays them.
>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.
>>>>
>>>>> What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
>>>>> have subscription services? Content is King.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.
>>>
>>>Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with Freeview
>>>upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of the technology
>>>but because of the content. The only reason to get Freesat is if you don't
>>>want subscription TV and can't get Freeview. The idea of getting it to 
>>>shaft
>>>SKY won't cross the mind of many people.
>>
>> Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over Freeview. 
>> You cannot record any
>> channels using a Sky digibox without paying a subscription so when the 
>> Freesat PVRs are available
>> there will be another big advantage for Freesat.
>
>Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just 
>wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your 
>talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content. 
>Getting the main channels in HD via Sat doesn't improve the content. Most 
>people getting SKY do  so because they can see that the main channels are 
>now full of dross and want something better.
>
>Content is King. Dross in HD or SD delivered by Cable,Sat or Aerial is still 
>dross. 

Plasma & LCD  HDTVs are selling in their millions. If you have just spent 1000-1500 pounds on a
large flat screen HDTV another 150 pounds to actually have some excellent free HD content is a very
good deal.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"John Russell"  wrote in message 
news:482d9355$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...


> Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just 
> wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your 
> talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content.



not neccesarily.
you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a 
large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions.



-- 
Gareth.

That fly, is your magic wand.....

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:37:34 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
 wrote:

>
>"John Russell"  wrote in message 
>news:482d9355$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
>
>> Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just 
>> wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV your 
>> talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and Content.
>
>
>
>not neccesarily.
>you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a 
>large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions.

What about the silent majority who watch a pre-1990 Sony TV?
-- 

Martin

On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:10:46 +0200, Nigel Barker
 wrote:

>You cannot record any
>channels using a Sky digibox without paying a subscription 

Yes you can. You just have to use something like a DVD recorder,
offboard PVR, or maybe even a video recorder, just like millions of
people do every day.

--

In uk.media.tv.sky Nigel Barker  wrote:

: Plasma & LCD  HDTVs are selling in their millions. If you have just spent 
: 1000-1500 pounds on a  large flat screen HDTV another 150 pounds to 
: actually have some excellent free HD content is a very
: good deal.

Could you please stop posting replies with lines longer than 80 cols! It
make it very messy on non-MS newsreaders.

Anyway - anyone who has spent "THAT* much on a TV is FAR more likely to
decide that the (VERY limited!) HD on Freesat is much inferior to that
available on Sky (and no quoting Sky's maximum charges as "typical" this
time please!)

On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:18:33 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath
 wrote:

>In uk.media.tv.sky Nigel Barker  wrote:
>
>: Plasma & LCD  HDTVs are selling in their millions. If you have just spent 
>: 1000-1500 pounds on a  large flat screen HDTV another 150 pounds to 
>: actually have some excellent free HD content is a very
>: good deal.
>
>Could you please stop posting replies with lines longer than 80 cols! It
>make it very messy on non-MS newsreaders.

Not if you select the word wrap option.

>
>Anyway - anyone who has spent "THAT* much on a TV is FAR more likely to
>decide that the (VERY limited!) HD on Freesat is much inferior to that
>available on Sky (and no quoting Sky's maximum charges as "typical" this
>time please!)
-- 

Martin

"The dog from that film you saw"  wrote in 
message news:695rihF30qlvqU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "John Russell"  wrote in message 
> news:482d9355$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
>
>> Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just 
>> wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV 
>> your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and 
>> Content.
>
>
>
> not neccesarily.
> you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a 
> large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions.

And how many of those did so to only watch Freeview? I bet many went to SKY 
users who wanted to watch footy on a large screen. You sure as hell don't 
want to watch BBC/ITV footy on a large screen it's atrocious. Thank god SKY 
are covering the FA Cup today!

On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell"  wrote:

>
>"The dog from that film you saw"  wrote in 
>message news:695rihF30qlvqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "John Russell"  wrote in message 
>> news:482d9355$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>>
>>> Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will just 
>>> wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV 
>>> your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and 
>>> Content.
>>
>>
>>
>> not neccesarily.
>> you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a 
>> large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions.
>
>And how many of those did so to only watch Freeview? I bet many went to SKY 
>users who wanted to watch footy on a large screen. You sure as hell don't 
>want to watch BBC/ITV footy on a large screen it's atrocious. Thank god SKY 
>are covering the FA Cup today! 

Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Nigel Barker"  wrote in message 
news:aoet24pf1gppo8e85l7u4usqs74iftehtd@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell" 
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"The dog from that film you saw"  wrote 
>>in
>>message news:695rihF30qlvqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "John Russell"  wrote in message
>>> news:482d9355$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Only if you want to upgrade to HD! Those happy with SD Freeview will 
>>>> just
>>>> wonder what all the fuss is about. Once you start talking about HD TV
>>>> your talking about those wanting Premium Quality in both Image and
>>>> Content.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> not neccesarily.
>>> you're also talking of the vast majority of people who have purchased a
>>> large tv set in the last 3+years - which is millions.
>>
>>And how many of those did so to only watch Freeview? I bet many went to 
>>SKY
>>users who wanted to watch footy on a large screen. You sure as hell don't
>>want to watch BBC/ITV footy on a large screen it's atrocious. Thank god 
>>SKY
>>are covering the FA Cup today!
>
> Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?

I was thinking of those poor sods stuck with their Freeview SD tuner. I have 
the choice of watching in HD via BBC or SKY!

Nigel Barker wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>> news:na.baf52b4f9f.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>> In article <4828863b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>>> "John Russell"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>>> news:na.9068ca4f9e.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>>> In article <g07ift$316u$1@energise.enta.net>, "Light of Aria"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Sky is "the user".
>>>
>>>>>> The customer is merely the mug who pays them.
>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.
>>>
>>>> What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
>>>> have subscription services? Content is King.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.
>>
>> Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with
>> Freeview upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of
>> the technology but because of the content. The only reason to get
>> Freesat is if you don't want subscription TV and can't get Freeview.
>> The idea of getting it to shaft SKY won't cross the mind of many
>> people.
>
> Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over
> Freeview. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
> paying a subscription

Er...not true. I record from my Sky Digital box via a DVD-Recorder to a
blank DVD-R easily enough. And with blank DVD-R's available everywhere,
I have unlimited disc space. Unfortunately, there' not much stuff that I 
record that I want to keep for long, what with adverts and DOG's etc...

On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:26:36 +0100, "Stephen O'Connell"  wrote:

>Nigel Barker wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>> news:na.baf52b4f9f.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>> In article <4828863b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>>>> "John Russell"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:na.9068ca4f9e.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>>>> In article <g07ift$316u$1@energise.enta.net>, "Light of Aria"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Sky is "the user".
>>>>
>>>>>>> The customer is merely the mug who pays them.
>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.
>>>>
>>>>> What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
>>>>> have subscription services? Content is King.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.
>>>
>>> Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with
>>> Freeview upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of
>>> the technology but because of the content. The only reason to get
>>> Freesat is if you don't want subscription TV and can't get Freeview.
>>> The idea of getting it to shaft SKY won't cross the mind of many
>>> people.
>>
>> Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over
>> Freeview. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
>> paying a subscription
>
>Er...not true. I record from my Sky Digital box via a DVD-Recorder to a
>blank DVD-R easily enough. And with blank DVD-R's available everywhere,
>I have unlimited disc space. Unfortunately, there' not much stuff that I 
>record that I want to keep for long, what with adverts and DOG's etc... 

Let's re-phrase that more precisely then. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
paying a subscription or suffering a loss in quality or convenience.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

Nigel Barker wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:26:36 +0100, "Stephen O'Connell"  wrote:
> 
>> Nigel Barker wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:15 +0100, "John Russell"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>>> news:na.baf52b4f9f.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>>> In article <4828863b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>>>>> "John Russell"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tennant Stuart"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:na.9068ca4f9e.a806e0tennant@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>>>>>>> In article <g07ift$316u$1@energise.enta.net>, "Light of Aria"
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sky is "the user".
>>>>>>>> The customer is merely the mug who pays them.
>>>>>>> Exactly. Sky is the number one reason for getting Freesat.
>>>>>> What's the fixation with having satellite, but not the option to
>>>>>> have subscription services? Content is King.
>>>>> No it isn't. It's about having nothing to do with Murdoch.
>>>> Sat is just a means of delivery. Why should anyone happy with
>>>> Freeview upgrade to Freesat? Those with SKY didn't get it because of
>>>> the technology but because of the content. The only reason to get
>>>> Freesat is if you don't want subscription TV and can't get Freeview.
>>>> The idea of getting it to shaft SKY won't cross the mind of many
>>>> people.
>>> Support for High Definition TV is a big plus for Freesat over
>>> Freeview. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
>>> paying a subscription
>> Er...not true. I record from my Sky Digital box via a DVD-Recorder to a
>> blank DVD-R easily enough. And with blank DVD-R's available everywhere,
>> I have unlimited disc space. Unfortunately, there' not much stuff that I 
>> record that I want to keep for long, what with adverts and DOG's etc... 
> 
> Let's re-phrase that more precisely then. You cannot record any channels using a Sky digibox without
> paying a subscription or suffering a loss in quality or convenience.

Let's rephrase that ;-) You cannot record any channels using a SKY + or 
HD box .......

In addition, it could be said that you cannot record using only a SKY 
digibox :-)

-- 
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the 
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able 
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
 wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell"  wrote:
>>Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today! 
>
>Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?

Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.


--

Zero Tolerance wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell"  wrote:
>>> Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today! 
>> Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?
> 
> Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.

Compression artefacts, or poor set up of the cameras ? I assume the match 
coverage was different on each channel ?


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:69e1dlF31ooaqU1@mid.individual.net...
> Zero Tolerance wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell" 
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today!
>>> Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?
>>
>> Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.
>
> Compression artefacts, or poor set up of the cameras ? I assume the match 
> coverage was different on each channel ?

It would have been a shared feed supplied by either the BBC or SKY.

John Russell wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:69e1dlF31ooaqU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Zero Tolerance wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell" 
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today!
>>>> Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?
>>> Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.
>> Compression artefacts, or poor set up of the cameras ? I assume the match 
>> coverage was different on each channel ?
> 
> It would have been a shared feed supplied by either the BBC or SKY. 

Not always no. One organisation would have been the 'Host Broadcaster' 
providing an international clean feed, in this case probably the Beeb.
I expect Sky did their own match coverage ?

In the days BBC and ITV covered the FA Cup Final, both organisations covered 
the match separately, except for the camera covering HRH presenting the cup 
etc, that was shared.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:69f827F32tti8U1@mid.individual.net...
> John Russell wrote:
>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:69e1dlF31ooaqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Zero Tolerance wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:50 +0200, Nigel Barker
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:09 +0100, "John Russell" 
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> Thank god SKY are covering the FA Cup today!
>>>>> Why not watch it for free on BBC HD?
>>>> Because even on BBC HD the picture was visibly inferior to Sky Sports.
>>> Compression artefacts, or poor set up of the cameras ? I assume the 
>>> match coverage was different on each channel ?
>>
>> It would have been a shared feed supplied by either the BBC or SKY.
>
> Not always no. One organisation would have been the 'Host Broadcaster' 
> providing an international clean feed, in this case probably the Beeb.
> I expect Sky did their own match coverage ?
>
> In the days BBC and ITV covered the FA Cup Final, both organisations 
> covered the match separately, except for the camera covering HRH 
> presenting the cup etc, that was shared.

Form what I could see most camera shots where shared. Clearly the BBC and 
SKY had it's own OB unit selecting the broadcast shot from the shared camera 
feeds and their own feeds from the stadium studios and field side 
interviewers. Which channel was then supplying the "international" viewers I 
cannot say. ITV/BBC usually lose quality in the means they use to connect 
the OB to base. With separate OB units for each  company there is still room 
for this to happen even with shared camera feeds.