Me and my brother are trying to convince my dad to get us Virgin media, mostly because BT is ****. With BT we have to pay for limited internet access, whereas its unlimited with Virgin. I'm not sure about prices but they are a lot better than BT, and Sky, considering how overpriced Murdoch has it.
I would check what 'Unlimited' means with Virgin media. Because aparently there is a difference between 'Unlimited' and 'Fully Unlimited'
You pay for 'unlimited' with Virgin. I'm on the XL broadband, which is 50Mbps (shortly to be replaced with 100Mbps but you get the full 50Mbps, not like with ADSL where a 20Mbps connexion gives you 8Mbps). There is no throttling and no fair usage policy but, as I say, you pay for it. I understand the lower-priced package is throttled during the day and evening if you hit a download threshold. The Virgin deal to show SSF1 is crap. It's not included in their XXL TV package (equivalent to Sky's HD package, which does carry SSF1): you have to subscribe to the full Sky Sports package at £22.50 a month to get the F1 channel. It doesn't affect me because I refuse to pay News Corps anything directly (part of my Virgin subscription goes to Sky but I can't control that) so the only way I'd take the F1 channel is if it was bundled with Virgin's XXL TV package and I therefore had no choice. If you want to subscribe to SSF1, Virgin is not the way to do it. I don't think Virgin is any cheaper than Sky overall. Anyone who has an Xbox360 and knows someone with a Sky subscription inc. HD or Sports (i.e. that includes SSF1) can register the Xbox on his mate's Sky Go account and watch that way. Sky Go allows two 'devices' to be registered and, since these include iPads and phones, it doesn't have to come through the Sky ISP.
I'm so old-school I don't even have a free-view box. TV is utter **** most of the time and not really worth watching unless it's Motorsport or something with David Attenborough. Pretty much everything on sky is on the internet somewhere, I watched more live West Ham games last season than Sky sports broadcast, I can watch films before they appear on sky premiere, if I decide to. OK technically it's theft, but technically Murdoch is a War criminal as guilty as Goebbels was.
The gist of all this is basically Sky (not forgetting the BBC caused it) have pissed off quite a number of subscribers, or potential ones. Assigning a new channel is plain cynical. Money grabbing bastards.
Miggins, I'm with you mate, hanging would be too good for the bastards, maybe, just maybe, Prescott becoming a police commissioner may eventually achieve some justice, how the **** can the police accept money for information !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . Although I do have freeview, sorry.
I have been sent some mail from sky, I dunno if you guys have recieved the same recently but it looks like they put a lot of effort into the sale of convincing me to join. It came in a quite nice looking black cardboard envelope with metalic red trimmings and contained a gloss brochure with facts and details on F1 and the Sky f1 team and package. I might actually find this post from sky helpfull! Thanks Sky! your junk is currently keeping me warm
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/02/18/sky_flaunts_f1_app_with_split_screen_view_function/ Sky's iPad app looks interesting, would be good if it means not having to get the to ropey live timing app from the FOM
I'd be interested to see how much the app costs, and whether you have to have the TV channel to use the app. Otherwise, it'd probably work out cheaper to buy an ipad and the app than pay Murdoch for the channel.
Well an ipad is about £350 full price, and at a rough guess, sky is £30.50 a month as a new customer, so over 12 months the ipad is cheaper.
It'll probably be like the Sky Go app - free but you'd need Sky Go account (and Sky Sports/HD subscription) to access content.
I don't understand what you're trying to get at? An iPad is cheaper than a Sky subscription? Probably is, but you're not going to get F1 on it. Ones a tv service the other is a tablet PC.
This whole thread reminds me of listening to my ecomentalist dad and his mates who just egg each other on with more and more increasingly extremist stories to "strengthen" their views. They even set up a website to rant on about things but I persuaded him to take it down as most of the content was libellous. Looking back over most of this thread Sky would have little trouble getting this site shut down for some of the things said that have escaped moderation some even border on inciting hatred and we know how freely the authorities like to apply that new law out side of the context it was designed for.
Possibly but I think there are precedents for responsibility and it is the individual posters who are responsible for what they say. All the forum needs to do (and I presume it does somewhere) is state that views expressed are those of the individual members, not the forum managers. This applies as much to criticism of powerful organisations as it does to the racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise objectionable opinions that are apparent throughout the forum. For my part I'm comfortable with what I've said on this thread because it's been echoed as recently as last week by Tom Watson, which is that Murdoch himself is singularly responsible for encouraging the environment within his companies that made phone hacking, bribery and corruption, and bullying and harassment the inevitable m.o. of his employees.
If News Corp takes seriously the idea of ensuring practises such as hacking the phones of murdered schoolgirls do not happen in any of its organisations, others will take seriously the idea of not writing unflattering things about News Corp.
if you look at the top it says, Comment.Debate.Create freely! The best sky can do is laugh in our faces because they are winning.
