There's no technical reason - it's just the business model. Sky+ has been used
to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn. The idea that your
PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no doubt panics people.
And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well, although in
that case they did actually have to provide the listings. With a Sky+ they are
already there.
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher Woods
Sent: 19 October 2007 09:41
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Thinking about Sky's power over us, my housemate told me that if you
want to get Freesat (or their £75 one-off offer which gives you six months of
knowledge mixes and then after that, just freesat) then you're quite entitled
to do so, no problems. But, if you want to get a Sky+ box, you HAVE to pay £10
a month for the timeshifting functionality regardless of whether you're on one
of their packages or whether you're just a Freesat customer, and you then get
tied into a 12 month contract just for the £10pm charge. Apparently it's a
legal thing... But why? If they've dropped (read: absorbed, I suppose) the
£10pcm cost for the timeshifting and outwardly don't charge anybody for it, why
can't they offer it free (and charge more for the box)?
Just thought I'd ask seeming that there's more than a few people on
here who have some decent Sky knowledge :)
