How I'm Realy P***ed Off
IanE
signal which has been playing up all wekk (though not on sky1) completly
obliterates the simpsons (No sat siganal, blocking, getting stuck etc..)
But hey i catch a break and its back to normal for buffy.
But no again when the techno monkeys at sky bugger up the sound and plaster
the screen on what seems to be the best episode of s5 yet with apologies.
But at leased, i say, my sky box isn't cutting out (you can see whats
coming..)
So Angel starts and horray good sound.
I sit back & my sky box cuts out again.... and stays that way.
It's just not my night.
Anyway I'll be off to get a copy from a friend at 10.
--
IanE
"..he's not a ball of sunshine!"
Willow Triangle
Mark Evans
> But hey i catch a break and its back to normal for buffy.
> But no again when the techno monkeys at sky bugger up the sound and plaster
> the screen on what seems to be the best episode of s5 yet with apologies.
They could at least have messed up the sound on the adverts too. So you
didn't need to adjust the volume every time...
Dave Thorp
>From: "IanE" iane...@hotmail.com
>Date: 18/05/2001 21:21 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9e40aq$g09$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>So their I preparing to watch the regualar buffy 2hr combo but no my sky
>signal which has been playing up all wekk (though not on sky1) completly
>obliterates the simpsons (No sat siganal, blocking, getting stuck etc..)
>
>But hey i catch a break and its back to normal for buffy.
>But no again when the techno monkeys at sky bugger up the sound and plaster
>the screen on what seems to be the best episode of s5 yet with apologies.
>
>But at leased, i say, my sky box isn't cutting out (you can see whats
>coming..)
>
>So Angel starts and horray good sound.
>I sit back & my sky box cuts out again.... and stays that way.
>
>It's just not my night.
You know this is all your fault for saying "at least my box isn't cuting out"!
Dave Thorp
Remove nospam to reply
Harry The Horse
subscribers.
Christopher G. Brannigan
Harry The Horse <Ha...@horse.com> wrote in message
news:XMrN6.84551$PP3.6...@nnrp3.clara.net...
well they get a hell of a lot more money from the advertisers....
Steve the Muffler
news:T_sN6.503$YWl.63...@news.randori.com...
> well they get a hell of a lot more money from the advertisers....
And who are the advertisers paying to show the ads to?
--
Steve the Muffler
E-mail replies to muf...@nospam.immortalcurse.com
(removing 'nospam').
Stephen Powell
<T_sN6.503$YWl.63...@news.randori.com>, it was rumoured that
c.g.br...@btinternet.com spewed forth this...
(I of course, believe none of it)
And what, pray tell, are the subscription fees for?
--
Eggz
http://www.naplesfl.net/~tbates/gravity/ <-I like this
Harry The Horse
and then they show you adverts. You pay to watch adverts. That's one
reason I decline to sign up to Sky. That and the fact that I hate that c**t
Murdoch - 'cos it's made by Fox, I'd almost refuse to watch Buffy, but that
would be a bit self-defeating }:)
Christopher G. Brannigan
Stephen Powell <egg...@ntlword.BLAH.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1570a3448...@news.ntlworld.com...
a very small amount of their income I would think. I'm sure they get a hell
of a lot more money from the advertisers in one day than they do from a
month's subscriptions from all their customers...
Christopher G. Brannigan
You're a bit of a wierdo then aint you. You pay £109 [I think] a year to
subscribe to 2 channels [BBC and BBC2] and you get no adverts then you can
pay sky £34 a month to subscribe to [approx] 150 channels with adverts. Now
if you were paying £100 per channel per year then I would expect Sky not to
have adverts...they don't.....the total money from subscribers must be a
very very small amount of their income. Even if every subscriber was on the
full package then they have about £200,000,000 now I would guess that that
amount would cover a very small fraction of their total costs, income and
things....they must have to have advertising in order to make, buy and
distribute their programmes...
Stephen Powell
<o9ON6.522$YWl.9...@news.randori.com>, it was rumoured that
Ah, so the advertises are more important than the customers. Always nice
to know exactly where we stand.
FWIW, if the ammount they recieve from subscriptions is that
insignificant, then they could give it away for free then, or at the very
least *not* increase subscription rates half way through a contract.
Infact giving it away completely would increase the user base, and thus
the advertising revenue.
Then maybe they could afford some decent equipment too.
Bert The Pikelet
<c.g.br...@btinternet.com> swung a mighty octupus around the room
before annoucing that:
If they're really that needy, why can't ITV (an advertising-based
channel with a far wider potential audience) afford the football,
then? If the BBC is so well off in comparison, how come it can't
afford to show 'Buffy' or 'Angel' or anything else first, then?
They've only got two channels to run, after all, yet Sky seems to be
able to run a mainstream channel, a smattering of sports channels, a
news channel, some movie channels...
I think Sky are pretty well off, to be honest, and that they have more
money at their disposal than most other channels could dream of.
Tim.
--------
'A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.'
-W.C. Fields