oxnsox:paulmilbank: I may well be wrong here and picking up on bad second hand information, so please correct me if i'm wrong, but it is my understanding that winz already subsidise sky on the benefit as a claimable expense for those with "disabilities" (however this is defined) who need it. In theory it is for those who cant get out of the house easily.
If this is the case, moving them onto a cheaper box makes a lot of sense. Providing them with a box for $25 a month or free and they pay for the sky programs if they want to makes financial sense instead of $45 a month for basic sky.
If this is correct, I find it shocking that Sky should be subsidised for any beneficiaries.
And yes I acknowledge that some folk maybe confined to home, however free to air TV still provides that choice as an option.
I'm open to be convinced otherwise providing its not a 'content' based argument, because everyones 'content' choices are justifiable individual and different.