SKY Box Office - could be good news
Dave Porter
All of us with Movie Channel subscriptions pay GBP 13 per month for the
movie channels, that's more than 4 PPV movies.
I doubt that we ever watch more than 4 movies a month anyway, so I may
cancel my movie subscriptions and use the PPV. If I watch 4 movies in a
month, I'm slightly better off, if I watch less, it's money in my pocket.
Makes sense to me.
---
Dave Porter - da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk - http://www.wcbs.demon.co.uk
From Northumberland ... now that's black adder country.
JOHNMIN
I suppose that's the idea everyones got, but I doubt BSkyB will like that.
Thet'll probably put somurt in the small print saying you have to subscribe to
the Movie Channels. It's a good point though.
Dom
In article <B09EFD56...@0.0.0.0>
da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk (Dave Porter) writes:
>All of us with Movie Channel subscriptions pay GBP 13 per month for the
>movie channels, that's more than 4 PPV movies.
>
>I doubt that we ever watch more than 4 movies a month anyway, so I may
>cancel my movie subscriptions and use the PPV. If I watch 4 movies in a
>month, I'm slightly better off, if I watch less, it's money in my pocket.
>Makes sense to me.
Why not just give your money to the video shop instead and watch them 3 months
ahead of Sky Box Office?
Dom
McClane The Dominator - Journalist and aortic-valve operation survivor...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk / Home: http://www.festive.demon.co.uk
Request Widescreen lists.............. charts-...@festive.demon.co.uk
Widescreen Video & Laserdisc lists; Video, Laserdisc, Cinema, PC & ......
Playstation game reviews, plus something you haven't seen for a while....
............................................... http://www.sonicstate.com
More Laserdisc Reviews...http://www.london-calling.co.uk/laser/laser.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Robinson
>They'll probably put somurt in the small print saying you have to subscribe to
>the movie channels. It's a good point though.
Not according to the current small print relating to Sky Box Office. It
is open to all subscribers, although this could change.
If you did stop the movie channels, would you loose anything else aside
from The Disney Channel?
Lou.
Dave Porter
In article <880438...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Why not just give your money to the video shop instead and watch them 3 months
>ahead of Sky Box Office?
Because it's much more convenient not having to go to a video shop and we
don't have one anywhere near us. The nearest is about ten miles away, which
means a total of 40 miles to pick up a video, bring it home, and then take
it back the following day. That's a gallon of petrol, and a waste of time.
Dom
In article <65ebr9$f...@mimas.brunel.ac.uk>
The ability for Sky to rip you off of about 15quid/month.
David Patrick
Louise Robinson <in9...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>>They'll probably put somurt in the small print saying you have to subscribe to
>>the movie channels. It's a good point though.
>
>Not according to the current small print relating to Sky Box Office. It
>is open to all subscribers, although this could change.
>
>If you did stop the movie channels, would you loose anything else aside
>from The Disney Channel?
Would you even lose that?
Sky was critisised for bundling it with the movie channels and it will
become a standard multichannel eventually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ David Patrick da...@alberon.demon.co.uk "Please do not offer \
/ d.j.p...@reading.ac.uk my god a peanut" APU \
------http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3535 'Fist of Fun' web page-------
Brian McIlwrath
David Patrick (da...@alberon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >If you did stop the movie channels, would you loose anything else aside
: >from The Disney Channel?
: Would you even lose that?
: Sky was critisised for bundling it with the movie channels and it will
: become a standard multichannel eventually.
AFAIK it will become a Premium Channel for non-movie subscribers!
Christopher D. Leuty
In article <347b27b6...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@alberon.demon.co.uk
(David Patrick) wrote:
> Sky was critisised for bundling it with the movie channels and it will
> become a standard multichannel eventually.
I think it's also possible that The Disney Channel might become a
standalone premium channel. Or the cost of multichannels goes up 3 quid or
so with it included. And the movie subscription price won't go down
either.
Let's face it, Sky [and Disney] will try and get as much as they can for it.
--
* Lose the large ape from email address before replying directly *
Incoming mail filtered for that cool, clean, junk-free taste!
Christopher D. Leuty, Manutech CopyShop at UMIST.
http://cdl.un.umist.ac.uk/ Getting the job done with Macintosh.
Dave Porter
In article <65ebr9$f...@mimas.brunel.ac.uk>,
Louise Robinson <in9...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>If you did stop the movie channels, would you loose anything else aside
>from The Disney Channel?
Yes, you'd lose the Disney Channel as well, which is a consideration as we
have a three year old. They are about to show 'The Lion King', but apart
from the odd movie, Disney is pretty awful. By that I mean, it's great for
the first week, but that's all they have. The turn round of cartoons is
unbelievably fast.
Dave Porter
In article <880506...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The ability for Sky to rip you off of about 15quid/month.
12.99 actually.
Dave Porter
(Disney Channel)
>Would you even lose that?
At the moment, yes you would.
>Sky was critisised for bundling it with the movie channels and it will
>become a standard multichannel eventually.
Do you have any evidence that this will happen. I think you may well be
wrong.
Brian McIlwrath
Dave Porter (da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >The ability for Sky to rip you off of about 15quid/month.
: 12.99 actually.
11.99 actually!
Dom
In article <B0A1F14B9...@0.0.0.0>
>
>>The ability for Sky to rip you off of about 15quid/month.
>
>12.99 actually.
I meant the difference between the price of the multichannel package (11.99)
and whatever the price of multichannels plus both film channels cost.
I didn't try to work it out as I can't count past infinity.
Dom
Nothing To Lose - http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/nothing.htm
Dave Porter
In article <65hg4l$12...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>,
b...@bkmpc.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Brian McIlwrath) wrote:
>Dave Porter (da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: 12.99 actually.
>
>11.99 actually!
No. You are wrong. Could you please try to ascertain the facts before
posting incorrectly.
To be totally accurate the cost of the movie channels is 13 pounds a month.
The cost of a basic Sky Subscription AND two premium channels is 24.99. The
cost of a basic Sky Subscription, i.e multichannels, is 11.99 and so the
cost of the movie channels alone is 13 pounds a month.
Consequently if you cancel your movie channels subscription but view 4 PPV
movies per month you are making a saving of 1.04 per month, if you watch
less the saving is more. If you watch more than 4 movies a month, keep your
movie channels subscription.
---
Dave Porter - da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk - http://www.wcbs.demon.co.uk
From Northumberland ... two rockets and a wild turkey.
Dave Porter
In article <880595...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I didn't try to work it out as I can't count past infinity.
You claim to be a journalist, but you can't count past 24.99, my God!
Dom
In article <B0A271A09...@wcbs.demon.co.uk>
da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk (Dave Porter) writes:
>In article <880595...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
>Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I didn't try to work it out as I can't count past infinity.
>
>You claim to be a journalist, but you can't count past 24.99, my God!
Sorry I was referring to the prices Sky will charge next year :)
Dave Porter
In article <880680...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Sorry I was referring to the prices Sky will charge next year :)
24.99 + 2 is beyond you is it? No wonder journalism gets such a bad press!
---
Dave Porter - da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk - http://www.wcbs.demon.co.uk
From Northumberland ... home of the British Space Programme.
Dom
In article <B0A4D3A3...@0.0.0.0>
da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk (Dave Porter) writes:
>In article <880680...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
>Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sorry I was referring to the prices Sky will charge next year :)
>
>24.99 + 2 is beyond you is it? No wonder journalism gets such a bad press!
My aortic-valve op was 3 years ago. When did you have your humour-bypass op?
Gareth Randall
>Why not just give your money to the video shop instead and watch them 3 months
>ahead of Sky Box Office?
Because that involves the expenditure of time and effort! PPV movies
are aimed at the person who can't or won't go out to the video shop -
and that's a very wide demographic. Not everyone has a 24-hour video
shop within a couple of minutes' safe walking distance, and many that
do would probably complain that new films are permanently on loan for
weeks, if not months (and the tape's knackered when you do finally get
it). It won't be long before PPV movies appear simultaneously with the
rental release, and the grand plan is ultimately to lead the rental
release by a few weeks - this won't happen until the system is fully
entrenched and the copy-protection as bulletproof as possible (at
least as far as Joe Sixpack with his Matsui VCR and TV is concerned).
All the research that has ever been done for PPV movies has yielded
the same result. Offer people the chance to choose reasonably current
movies whenever they want, without leaving their armchair, for a price
equivalent to a video shop rental, and they say they want the option.
>If you did stop the movie channels, would you loose anything else aside
>from The Disney Channel?
>The ability for Sky to rip you off of about 15quid/month.
I find it hard to blame Sky for ripping people off for a service that
no-one is forced to buy. I have no connection with Sky other than as a
viewer, but it's no great secret that TV is an incredibly expensive
and very risky business, even before you get to the
multi-million-pound deals for sporting events and movie rights. Given
its relatively tiny viewership, Sky's doing pretty well to keep its
charges so low.
Gareth
Dave Porter
In article <880788...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My aortic-valve op was 3 years ago. When did you have your humour-bypass op?
Ahhh, humour. I didn't know journalists knew what that was.
Dom
In article <B0A6F491...@0.0.0.0>
da...@wcbs.demon.co.uk (Dave Porter) writes:
>In article <880788...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
>Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>My aortic-valve op was 3 years ago. When did you have your humour-bypass op?
>
>Ahhh, humour. I didn't know journalists knew what that was.
No, that's you that is.
Dom
In article <65qus2$9qo$3...@apple.news.easynet.net>
g...@easynet.co.uk (Gareth Randall) writes:
>>Why not just give your money to the video shop instead and watch them 3 months
>>ahead of Sky Box Office?
>
>Because that involves the expenditure of time and effort! PPV movies
>are aimed at the person who can't or won't go out to the video shop -
>and that's a very wide demographic. Not everyone has a 24-hour video
>shop within a couple of minutes' safe walking distance, and many that
>do would probably complain that new films are permanently on loan for
>weeks, if not months (and the tape's knackered when you do finally get
>it). It won't be long before PPV movies appear simultaneously with the
>rental release, and the grand plan is ultimately to lead the rental
>release by a few weeks - this won't happen until the system is fully
>entrenched and the copy-protection as bulletproof as possible (at
>least as far as Joe Sixpack with his Matsui VCR and TV is concerned).
Surely any encryption they put into the PPV (or any Sky) service has to
be compatible with the equipment it's intended for, so if they introduce
Macrovision into it people will have to buy new decoders if they don't have
the BugBlaster boxes.
Brian McIlwrath
Dom (mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Surely any encryption they put into the PPV (or any Sky) service has to
: be compatible with the equipment it's intended for, so if they introduce
: Macrovision into it people will have to buy new decoders if they don't have
: the BugBlaster boxes.
Sky's DIGITAL decoders will have optional (switchable by the broadcaster)
Macrovision encoding from day one. It's part of the decoder specification.
Dave Porter
In article <880932...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No, that's you that is.
Not a very reasoned argument, Dom.
Gareth Kitchener
If you can't record the ppv movies when they are on, I for one, am not
interested. If you go to the cinema to watch a film, you won't get
interrupted while you are watching it. If you rent a video and your mum
phones you in the middle, you can stop the tape. If you're watching TV
"live" and you get interrupted, you can put a tape in to record the rest.
If you're paying £2.99 for an unrecordable movie and your in-laws pop round
for a surprise visit you can.......pay another £2.99 to watch it another
day?
Ummm, No!
Gareth
>>release by a few weeks - this won't happen until the system is fully
>>entrenched and the copy-protection as bulletproof as possible (at
>>least as far as Joe Sixpack with his Matsui VCR and TV is concerned).
>
>Surely any encryption they put into the PPV (or any Sky) service has to
>be compatible with the equipment it's intended for, so if they introduce
>Macrovision into it people will have to buy new decoders if they don't have
>the BugBlaster boxes.
>
>Dom
Gareth Randall
>Surely any encryption they put into the PPV (or any Sky) service has to
>be compatible with the equipment it's intended for, so if they introduce
>Macrovision into it people will have to buy new decoders if they don't have
>the BugBlaster boxes.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of Macrovision, Dom - it's *not*
a form of picture encryption, insofar as you don't need to decrypt it
in order to see a picture. It's a tweak to the sync pulse on the tape
that most TVs can cope with without visible picture distortion, but
which throws most VCRs for a loop when they try and record it. Very
many tapes down at your local video shop will be encoded; the system
has been in use for some years, with Disney being the most
enthusiastic user.
The idea is that that you can stick a Macrovision-encoded tape into
any VCR and play it; the TV receives the tweaked sync pulse, but
because most TVs are, as a rule, far more tolerant of sync variations
than VCRs, it doesn't affect the picture (except on some older sets).
The problems starts if you try and copy the tape; the recording VCR
tries to lock to the incoming sync pulse, but the Macrovision bursts
prevent it from doing so, and as correct sync is rather vital to video
recording operations, you end up recording an unwatchable, corrupted
signal.
Bugblaster-type boxes defeat Macrovision and allow copying because
they chuck away the encoded sync pulse before it reaches the recording
VCR, and send it a clean one instead.
>If you can't record the ppv movies when they are on, I for one, am not
>interested.
It's not going to be that difficult to circumvent. It might require a
one-off outlay of about £60 for the necessary black box to sit between
your decoder and VCR, but that's about all.
Gareth
na...@globalnet.co.uk
On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 09:17:30 GMT, g...@easynet.co.uk (Gareth Randall)
wrote:
Why Doesn't anybody just call up SKY and ask them about the alleged
implications of Macrovision?
Brian McIlwrath
na...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
: Why Doesn't anybody just call up SKY and ask them about the alleged
: implications of Macrovision?
Because they won't KNOW yet! It's just a feature that will be in their set
top boxes. They will be able to turn it on or off. The US digital satellite
boxes have it as well but it is NOT (AFAIK) used very much (even on PPV
movies). If Sky were ever allowed to show PPV at the same time (or before) the
films were on video release the film companies might then insist on it.
Ann
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Dave Porter wrote:
> In article <880932...@festive.demon.co.uk>,
> Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >No, that's you that is.
>
> Not a very reasoned argument, Dom.
>
Why would you expect a reasoned argument here?
Ann
...& there she was....gone....
Dave Porter
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.971203...@suma3.reading.ac.uk>,
Ann <vbs...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>Why would you expect a reasoned argument here?
Yes, naive of me.
Stephen M Baines
In article <65tv0u$2gb$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>
g...@easynet.co.uk "Gareth Randall" writes:
> You seem to misunderstand the nature of Macrovision, Dom - it's *not*
> a form of picture encryption, insofar as you don't need to decrypt it
> in order to see a picture. It's a tweak to the sync pulse on the tape
> that most TVs can cope with without visible picture distortion, but
> which throws most VCRs for a loop when they try and record it. Very
> many tapes down at your local video shop will be encoded; the system
> has been in use for some years, with Disney being the most
> enthusiastic user.
My TV is not that old, but does not cope at all well with Macrovision
tapes. I've given up renting tapes because I never know if I will be
able to watch them or not. My 10 year+ telly, however, does cope but
suffers from being old and fairly worn out.
--
Stephen M Baines
F1/TouringCars http://web.ukonline.co.uk/Members/stephen.baines