Big drop in Sky subscribers

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Big drop in Sky subscribers

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 45

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557340 22-May-2016 15:43

Rikkitic:
Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557342 22-May-2016 15:50

Rikkitic:
tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

richms:

From a user perspective the similarities are there, as a user I do not give a crap about the problems the business has moving from old model to new model. They either do it or go broke, both of which I am indifferent to.

Blue bubble could disappear tomorrow, the drivers would go elsewhere and I would still get a lift from uber or someone else.

Sky could disappear and someone else would begin buying/creating and selling video content to people.

I think this states it very well. The point is not about business economics or who gets what. The point is about how the end customer who actually pays for it receives the service she wants for the price she is prepared to pay. Everything else is just hot air.

So running a business has nothing to do with Business economics or what entities receive for the services they provide. Its only about the customers getting what they want, and at the price that suits them. Yeah ok.

Absolutely. The bottom line fundamental of every business outside North Korea is that it has to supply something customers want at a price they are prepared to pay. If it doesn't get those two simple things right, it will fail. If it can't figure out how to do this, someone else will come along who can.

Marketing is about what the market will bear, that is correct. Competition can and does mitigate that. So the price becomes cost plus a margin.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1557348 22-May-2016 16:01

richms: It's just entertainment. If sky goes away or is significantly reduced in content via satellite then it might make the push for more rural ufb.

Indeed. The current physical boundaries of the UFB rollout are not set in stone. Future governments may look at extending it further afield.

dafman

4057 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2656

Trusted

#1557469 22-May-2016 17:49

Memo to promoter - Burger King sponsorship, but Gordon Ramsey restaurant pricing to view - what did you seriously expect would happen?!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1557470 22-May-2016 17:52

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:

Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

No, I believe in price equals what people will pay and nothing else. If they won't pay what it costs, then it won't happen unless an authority decides it is so important that the cost should be spread.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1557490 22-May-2016 18:41

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:

Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

No, I believe in price equals what people will pay and nothing else. If they won't pay what it costs, then it won't happen unless an authority decides it is so important that the cost should be spread.

And English Premier League in NZ.... RIP.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#1557491 22-May-2016 18:52

The promoters of this fight are so greedy that they wouldn't even let the regular TV news tonite show any of the fight action only stills..

Regards,

Old3eyes

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557503 22-May-2016 19:32

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:

Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

No, I believe in price equals what people will pay and nothing else. If they won't pay what it costs, then it won't happen unless an authority decides it is so important that the cost should be spread.

So, you aren't prepared to what it costs, YOU want it subsidised for YOU. Got it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557504 22-May-2016 19:35

old3eyes:

The promoters of this fight are so greedy that they wouldn't even let the regular TV news tonite show any of the fight action only stills..

Yep. They want the money but half the country is excluded? Good business model

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557511 22-May-2016 19:44

ockel:

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:

Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

No, I believe in price equals what people will pay and nothing else. If they won't pay what it costs, then it won't happen unless an authority decides it is so important that the cost should be spread.

And English Premier League in NZ.... RIP.

Im sure the greater populous would be happy to subsidise the EPL. And F1, and MotoGP, and whatever else anyone wants. Plus, where is the Turkistan T20 Croquet? Sky, whats up with that? What I laughed at is Stuff. Bad Sky, then they lost the cricket. Hey, thats competition, which is good, but it was bad Sky for losing the cricket. I know that many here are happy to pay, but some, I want it for two bucks.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1557521 22-May-2016 19:55

tdgeek:

ockel:

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:

Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

No, I believe in price equals what people will pay and nothing else. If they won't pay what it costs, then it won't happen unless an authority decides it is so important that the cost should be spread.

And English Premier League in NZ.... RIP.

Im sure the greater populous would be happy to subsidise the EPL. And F1, and MotoGP, and whatever else anyone wants. Plus, where is the Turkistan T20 Croquet? Sky, whats up with that? What I laughed at is Stuff. Bad Sky, then they lost the cricket. Hey, thats competition, which is good, but it was bad Sky for losing the cricket. I know that many here are happy to pay, but some, I want it for two bucks.

People that comment on Stuff are funny. They want it free and they want it all. When Stuff and the Herald merge and their news goes behind a paywall (and the ability to comment might be restricted to those that pay for their news) it'll be a tragedy. How dare a business model that made the mistake of giving away content for free suddenly want to charge for it!

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1557539 22-May-2016 20:35

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:

Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

No, I believe in price equals what people will pay and nothing else. If they won't pay what it costs, then it won't happen unless an authority decides it is so important that the cost should be spread.

So, you aren't prepared to what it costs, YOU want it subsidised for YOU. Got it.

No idea what you are banging on about. That is not what I said and it is not what I mean. The price of anything is what purchasers are prepared to pay. This has nothing to do with the cost to the seller or anything else. Just ask Dick Smith. If you ask X dollars for something, and no-one is prepared to pay that, you don't sell it. What it cost you has nothing to do with it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1557545 22-May-2016 20:39

Not entirely correct, the price is what the seller sets, its sales success is what the buyer is prepared to buy.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

quickymart

14964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14003

ID Verified

#1557586 22-May-2016 21:28

old3eyes:

The promoters of this fight are so greedy that they wouldn't even let the regular TV news tonite show any of the fight action only stills..

LOL! So ridiculous, it reminded me of this episode of The Simpsons:

At work...

Len: Hey, big fight coming up.

Karl: Yea, you wanna come over to my house and listen to round-by-round

updates on the radio?

Len: Oh, yeah, okay. Oh, and then after the fight, we can watch the

still photos on the 11-o'clock news.

Karl: Not too shabby!

-- ``Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment''