Written on: 30/01/2011 by Mister Merlin (8 reviews written)
Although not the most reliable piece of equipment I have ever owned, I was quite impressed by the HD picture on my TV once everything was finally connected up, though the installation engineer made a right mess and drilled a hole that alomst destroyed my conservatory floor because he did not look and notice that it was higher than the point he was drilling into in the wall behind the TV!! Still, those problems aside, I realise that Sky have to pay for the subsidised boxes, but really, should you pay for better picture quality? I would have thought that all TV companies are obliged to give you the best sound and picture quality as a matter of course... not dress it up and charge you more for it? £10 a month is simply too much and a lot of the stuff advertised as HD is not true HD but emulated by scaling up (as some dvd players do). This isn't on really is it? Also, note that the output on the boxes is not progressive HD so no doubt they will need to exchange these again in the future. You can't really fault the choice of channels if a little expensive, remember unless you have multiroom (another £10 for Standard of £20 for HD per month) you can only watch one thing at a time. Some of the live stuff News and Sky Sports News can be a bit ameteurish at times though. Anytime plus though is brilliant although it won't allow you to record some films onto disc as they are protected... but you could when they were originally shown. (Weird red tape nonsense again).
My Sky package inclusive of Telephone rental / Calls and Internet tops £120 a month. In these times that is a lot so I will be downgrading soon. To pay that is the same (almost) as a years' licence fee.. you get more yes, but as I said, you can only watch one thing at a time. Sky do try hard though. Much better than Virgin, and miles ahead of NTL from what I have seen. Almost perfect entertainment.