Sky Price increases

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky Price increases

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11

15 posts

Geek

#1304629 13-May-2015 16:11

I have been a Sky subscriber for several decades and recall the early promises of no advertising and quality programming. That has changed.

Now there are more channels than ever which should be a good thing, however the quality programs are just shifted to a new channel such as Rialto or SoHo as a means of charging additional fees.

I really hate Sky and am looking for the opportunity to be selective with paying for the channels I use. I would pay for Rugby, Cricket and SoHo and that's it. I use Lightbox for other good viewing.

I like others, like the Sky HD Decoder and watch all my TV through it.

SumnerBoy

2074 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1304637 13-May-2015 16:32

I wish I didn't love watching rugby/cricket/league...would save me a lot of $$$!

mattwnz

20152 posts

Uber Geek

#1304666 13-May-2015 16:49

SumnerBoy: I wish I didn't love watching rugby/cricket/league...would save me a lot of $$$!

They did lose the Premier League, which reduces the value of sky sport, but don't think they reduced the price. Since FTA sport went to sky, I have lost interest in watching sport on TV. I think if sport is the only real reason to get sky, many people may drop it. But OTA sports is really old generation media these days, and it is going the way of CD's

JamesL

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1304678 13-May-2015 17:20

Its funny how they try justify the price rise with a massive spiel upfront about some channel called "The Zone" which I'd never heard of till today and all the useless "pop up" channels they have, which just consume bandwidth on an already saturated satellite. How about more HD channels like Discovery, Nat Geo, Prime etc.. then I might "believe" you on said price rise.

Then they claim they try fight hard to keep prices down.. hah sure.

Glad I have that 12 month deal where I'm only paying for the basic package and free sports/movies.

l43a2

1779 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1304680 13-May-2015 17:25

JamesL: Its funny how they try justify the price rise with a massive spiel upfront about some channel called "The Zone" which I'd never heard of till today and all the useless "pop up" channels they have, which just consume bandwidth on an already saturated satellite. How about more HD channels like Discovery, Nat Geo, Prime etc.. then I might "believe" you on said price rise.

Then they claim they try fight hard to keep prices down.. hah sure.

Glad I have that 12 month deal where I'm only paying for the basic package and free sports/movies.

dont forget the savings from losing alot of different sports :P EPL, some Golf ETC

mattwnz

20152 posts

Uber Geek

#1304691 13-May-2015 17:32

JamesL: Its funny how they try justify the price rise with a massive spiel upfront about some channel called "The Zone" which I'd never heard of till today and all the useless "pop up" channels they have, which just consume bandwidth on an already saturated satellite. How about more HD channels like Discovery, Nat Geo, Prime etc.. then I might "believe" you on said price rise.

Then they claim they try fight hard to keep prices down.. hah sure.

Glad I have that 12 month deal where I'm only paying for the basic package and free sports/movies.

They do have shareholders so they have to make a decent profit for their investment, and I don't have any problems with that. The problem for them is that they are facing new generation competition that makes their model look old. So if they are losing subscribers, they have to either cut costs, or increase revenue somehow.

I don't actually think sky is too bad a value if you do lots of TV watching and enjoy sport. But they are now beginning to lose rights to content, and new entrants like lightbox and netflix give people a lower entry into pay tv. In the end people may end up paying just as much, and have multiple providers to get all the content they want.

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1304697 13-May-2015 17:39

Have they stated why?

My guess: Basic - "We are upgrading/replacing decoders, and that costs money"
Sport: "Increased costs for some sports [Read: Rugby licensing], upcoming RWC, Feb's CWC etc"

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1304711 13-May-2015 18:00

I struggle these days with the justification for the HD ticket. When most people would probably have TVs capable of at least HD it is hardly a premium product for a select few anymore. Considering the miniscule number of their channels overall that actually are HD it seems even worse.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

hairy1

3332 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1304712 13-May-2015 18:01

Don't forget the Mysky update rolling out in March this year.....

My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

mattwnz

20152 posts

Uber Geek

#1304713 13-May-2015 18:01

Dingbatt: I struggle these days with the justification for the HD ticket. When most people would probably have TVs capable of at least HD it is hardly a premium product for a select few anymore. Considering the miniscule number of their channels overall that actually are HD it seems even worse.

These days people now expect higher than HD content for their newer UHD TVs, so HD in 2015 should really be standard.

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1304714 13-May-2015 18:09

hairy1: Don't forget the Mysky update rolling out in March this year.....

Oh didn't you hear, they apparently never said March and it's now middle/2nd half of the year! :P

Hiamie

354 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1304716 13-May-2015 18:20

Beltor: I have been a Sky subscriber for several decades and recall the early promises of no advertising and quality programming. That has changed.

Now there are more channels than ever which should be a good thing, however the quality programs are just shifted to a new channel such as Rialto or SoHo as a means of charging additional fees.

I really hate Sky and am looking for the opportunity to be selective with paying for the channels I use.

Couldn't agree more.

I am totally fed up with sky breaking programmes unnecessary just to advertise upcoming SKY programmes. Totally unnecessary on channels like VIBE and BOX. I recognise that some channels may be relayed from Australia and already have gaps into which SKY can fill with ads, but not on channels that are not relayed from other countries in real time.

Combined with the lack of HD - especially on the documentary channels, I too have already discussed with my wife the option to abandon SKY altogether. For me, I am happy with the price I pay, I just HATE HATE HATE the ads and lack of HD.

Can't see myself being a subscriber much longer.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1304719 13-May-2015 18:42

dafman:
andrew027: This is probably not the right thread, and it's probably covered in 20 other threads, and I know there are probably good reasons (apart from the money-grabbing commercial one) why it can't be done, but I still wish I could just cherry pick the channels I want.

With the imminent price rises, I will be paying $123 per month for the various packages I'm signed up for. A quick count shows that 46% of the channels bundled into those packages are ones that nobody in my family watches. Averaging my bill across the number of channels, I'm paying $50 a month for content I don't want. With that $50, I could add some extras that I'd like but don't get now (because I give enough to Sky already), like Rialto and Arts Channel, plus the HD ticket.

After a while, Sky might even find there's a bunch of channels nobody wants to watch, and they could save themselves some money by not paying for that content in the first place.

With so many people switching to streaming surely Sky is shooting themselves in the foot with a business model that charges people for what they don't want?

It's only the rugby that's keeping Sky viable as their pricing grows more and more ridiculous compared against the growing number of streaming options.

And F1, and Grand Slam tennis, and MotoGP, but thats just me. And docos

If only there were "alternate" options...

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1304722 13-May-2015 18:54

Bee: Nice to meet a happy Sky customer ;)

I'll stick with my lightbox and Netflix at a total of $24 a month!

good luck watching the rugby on that :)

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1304725 13-May-2015 19:03

Beltor: the quality programs are just shifted to a new channel such as Rialto or SoHo as a means of charging additional fees.

Yep, then they justify price increases because of the new channels too.

Sky prices should be rising at inflation rates, which is close to 0 just now.

I bought a tivo to dump sky (and watch sports at the pub or friends), but had to return the tivo as it was not in good condition.

On the lookout again for another tivo

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11