UPC Digital + box compared to Sky +

greendom

I'm currently a Sky customer with a pretty old (80 gig) Sky + box. I have the opportunity to switch to UPC. How do the boxes compare in terms of usability/capacity etc ?

forzacalcio

Only bit of advice! Dont!

Tow

Compared a Sky HD box the UPC HD Box's EPG is slow and clunky and the picture quality is not as good (too much compression) on many SD channels. Chances are UPC just take the Sky/Astra feed for most of the UK channels and rebroadcast it. The box also runs much hotter, but as UPC retain ownership I assume unlike Sky a replacement is free when it eventually cooks its self. The current UPC HD boxes are also capable of movie on demand (built in broadband cable modem) but they dont offer this service.

listermint

okay, to be balanced.

UPC offer a decent service, very similar channels (No Sky Sports HD) but they do have other HD offerings.

The EPG is slow, the remote design is poor. The box is black and slim which is a plus.

They are far cheaper than sky so that cant hurt the pocket.


In terms of hardware sky wins. In terms of price Sky are abissmal.

maggy_thatcher

listermint wrote: »

In terms of hardware sky wins. In terms of price Sky are abissmal.

I wouldn't say Sky pricing is abysmal (vs UPC)...they've got a lot more options. Sky prices go from €23-€103 depending on what TV channels you want.

UPC goes from €23-€83, with a substantially smaller channel selection.

The only real advantage that UPC has (on the TV side) is that the channel selection options are more "tastes" -- the €23 UPC package is a couple of entertainment channels, a couple of music channels, a couple of childrens channels, etc. Whereas the Sky €23 package is all of the entertainment channels *or* all of the music channels *or* all of the childrens channels, etc. You then pay €2 extra for each extra category.

Sky charge €15 (which is an outrageous sum) for HD vs UPC charge €5, but at the same time Sky do have substantially more HD channels (Sky have up to 47, UPC have up to 11). Also, you can opt out of paying the €15 and still get the FTA HD channels, which is something you can't do with UPC.

listermint

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I wouldn't say Sky pricing is abysmal (vs UPC)...they've got a lot more options. Sky prices go from €23-€103 depending on what TV channels you want.

UPC goes from €23-€83, with a substantially smaller channel selection.

The only real advantage that UPC has (on the TV side) is that the channel selection options are more "tastes" -- the €23 UPC package is a couple of entertainment channels, a couple of music channels, a couple of childrens channels, etc. Whereas the Sky €23 package is all of the entertainment channels *or* all of the music channels *or* all of the childrens channels, etc. You then pay €2 extra for each extra category.

Sky charge €15 (which is an outrageous sum) for HD vs UPC charge €5, but at the same time Sky do have substantially more HD channels (Sky have up to 47, UPC have up to 11). Also, you can opt out of paying the €15 and still get the FTA HD channels, which is something you can't do with UPC.

Il stick to my abysmal statement, Ive had both and Sky have been ripping people of in this country for years just because we are idiots. Im totally Free Sat at the moment.

maggy_thatcher

listermint wrote: »

Il stick to my abysmal statement, Ive had both and Sky have been ripping people of in this country for years just because we are idiots. Im totally Free Sat at the moment.

Ah but you didn't say you were comparing it to FTA. This thread was a comparison between UPC & Sky, not Sky/UPC and FTA. If you say that sky charges are abysmal, do you also think that the UPC prices are abysmal?

kmick

UPC
Pros
UPC is cheaper.
I pay 70 euro for tv, phone and 15Mb broadband. They dsicounted it a tenner for 12 months as I was having some issues with the phone so I only pay 60.

Cons
The picture quality is a noticeably worse.
The box is slow and the EPG is woeful. Scheduled recordings often fail.

SKY
Pros
Picture quality, EPG is nice. HD ever expanding but really not much good unless you have the movies/sport.

Cons
Expensive
Charge you 15/month for HD. If you have HD+, Movies and a two mix package its gonna cost you 70 euro a month for tv alone.

listermint

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Ah but you didn't say you were comparing it to FTA. This thread was a comparison between UPC & Sky, not Sky/UPC and FTA. If you say that sky charges are abysmal, do you also think that the UPC prices are abysmal?

UPC offer more value for money, Sky dont. That is what I believe. simple.

Any as an addition I commented on the rip off prices by sky in the republic.

amiable

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Ah but you didn't say you were comparing it to FTA. This thread was a comparison between UPC & Sky, not Sky/UPC and FTA. If you say that sky charges are abysmal, do you also think that the UPC prices are abysmal?

I think the poster wasn't comparing FTA in his/hers original post
That was just an after thought and not a comparison.

Hugh Cream

I'd gladly pay the extra for sky,you pay for quality,which is what you get with sky.
UPC on the other hand has far too many flaws.

greendom

Thanks for all the replies - how does the hard drive compare? Does it store more than an 80gig Sky + box (without anytime) .

200motels

My advice is stay with Sky, UPC picture quality is poor and the choice of channels are also poor, I know Sky is not cheap but it's well worth it and it Has Sky AtlanticHD which is a superb channel.

greendom

200motels wrote: »

My advice is stay with Sky, UPC picture quality is poor and the choice of channels are also poor, I know Sky is not cheap but it's well worth it and it Has Sky AtlanticHD which is a superb channel.

Very good point about Sky Atlantic - I'd really miss Boardwalk Empire, not to mention the Sopranos reruns.

watty

If you cancel UPC you have nothing.
If you cancel Sky you own the box, which won't record/play, but the FTA and FTA HD still work. BBC red button and Text interactive on BBC & Sky news.

Shortly C4 will be FTA. BBC1 HD, ITV HD, BBC HD are FTA.

Generally Satellite quality is better.
The box is faster and easier to use.
There is option to add more non-SKy free "Freesat HD" PVR to dish or more LNBs for other satellites.

For Pay TV, UPC is slightly cheaper. You can get UPC Broadband without the TV.
About 92% of TV watched is Free To Air.
See http://www.saortv.info/channels/uk-televison/
and http://www.saortv.info/channels/

If you are careful about which package(s) to pick and care about quality and want flexibility, then Sky for TV is far far better than UPC.
UPC or Sky can't really compete with FTA TV and boxed DVD sets if you don't want Sky Sports/ESPN/Setanta.

kinvara64

I may be wrong but remember reading somewhere that Sky Atlantic free for the first six months from its launch, and will be a pay channel thereafter.

watty

It's not free. It's included in all sky packages for 6 months, and then after that only in one package, (Variety?), one that most Sky subscribers have.

The only free channels are ones that work without a subscription.

Moon Indigo

Really confused now! Due to phone UPC today to sort out installation via Dish on chimney. I'm with sky at the moment and they are pure rip off I will save 30 euro a month on the bill with UPC but honestly is it worth it? I really need honest advice on this and FAST can anyone help? The whole picture quality worries me thought I need my tv! Did anyone change and what did they think? Thanks!