Disgraceful State of Sky online services

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Disgraceful State of Sky online services

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

14141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11935

ID Verified

#1609905 11-Aug-2016 07:24

tdgeek: There are still quite a few areas (notably rural ones) where the broadband is poor or non-existent yet they can all get satellite. Either that or if they're on wireless RBI the data caps (IMO) are probably too low to allow daily streaming of everything just yet. I think satellite will be around for some time yet.

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1609930 11-Aug-2016 09:25

SkyGo's biggest use case from my perspective is when events fall during working hours and people still want to watch. Americas Cups, Olympics, Grand Finals in sports overseas. I consider it a fundamental failure to understand their market if they didn't forsee SkyGo popularity.

NZ is primarily a sporting nation, a LOT of work-places allow or even encourage watching of these big games if they fall inside of working hours.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1609932 11-Aug-2016 09:31

davidcole:

tdgeek:

When is the next high interest event?

probalby mens 7s if they get into the final.

Had that on SkyGo this morning and fine, no issues.

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1609934 11-Aug-2016 09:33

tdgeek:

davidcole:

tdgeek:

When is the next high interest event?

probalby mens 7s if they get into the final.

Had that on SkyGo this morning and fine, no issues.

Watched it on TV so I don't know if it would have been ok for me.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1609938 11-Aug-2016 09:36

quickymart:

tdgeek: There are still quite a few areas (notably rural ones) where the broadband is poor or non-existent yet they can all get satellite. Either that or if they're on wireless RBI the data caps (IMO) are probably too low to allow daily streaming of everything just yet. I think satellite will be around for some time yet.

I fully agree, but you get the constant drone of whining and Sky bashing, outdated technology, so if Sky satisfied all that and has only latest tech, then it will be the constant drone of bashing Sky for cutting these rural people off. Hence the theme is less the issues, its more to bash Sky whatever the current fashionable reason is. My comment to cut satellite off was to highlight this. Ideally, Optus will slash the high cost, and allow a smaller user base to use satellite at a sound cost. If not, someone will have to pay what will be a high cost per user

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1609939 11-Aug-2016 09:37

networkn:

tdgeek:

davidcole:

tdgeek:

When is the next high interest event?

probalby mens 7s if they get into the final.

Had that on SkyGo this morning and fine, no issues.

Watched it on TV so I don't know if it would have been ok for me.

It will be worthwhile to alert here when its playing up so others can test. Sky have freely admitted issues but they said this issue was not showing up at their end

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1609944 11-Aug-2016 09:50

tdgeek:

quickymart:

tdgeek: There are still quite a few areas (notably rural ones) where the broadband is poor or non-existent yet they can all get satellite. Either that or if they're on wireless RBI the data caps (IMO) are probably too low to allow daily streaming of everything just yet. I think satellite will be around for some time yet.

I fully agree, but you get the constant drone of whining and Sky bashing, outdated technology, so if Sky satisfied all that and has only latest tech, then it will be the constant drone of bashing Sky for cutting these rural people off. Hence the theme is less the issues, its more to bash Sky whatever the current fashionable reason is. My comment to cut satellite off was to highlight this. Ideally, Optus will slash the high cost, and allow a smaller user base to use satellite at a sound cost. If not, someone will have to pay what will be a high cost per user

I get trying to balance the argument, but to suggest all complaints about Sky have no validity isn't any fairer. The fringe whiners, those who want Sky to cost $20 etc, those are the people to ignore, but Sky has a considerable number of faults, which it's no less reasonable to disregard.

It is possible for Sky to run it's business in a more consumer-friendly way, and have a good market share and profit reasonably from it (lots of technology companies do it). Opening the lines of communication would be a good start. People are forced to draw their own (sometimes unreasonable) conclusions, in the absence of facts.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1609985 11-Aug-2016 10:42

Big +1 for the above. It also sums up my view (which some keep misinterpreting) quite nicely.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1609991 11-Aug-2016 10:56

networkn:

tdgeek:

quickymart:

tdgeek: There are still quite a few areas (notably rural ones) where the broadband is poor or non-existent yet they can all get satellite. Either that or if they're on wireless RBI the data caps (IMO) are probably too low to allow daily streaming of everything just yet. I think satellite will be around for some time yet.

I fully agree, but you get the constant drone of whining and Sky bashing, outdated technology, so if Sky satisfied all that and has only latest tech, then it will be the constant drone of bashing Sky for cutting these rural people off. Hence the theme is less the issues, its more to bash Sky whatever the current fashionable reason is. My comment to cut satellite off was to highlight this. Ideally, Optus will slash the high cost, and allow a smaller user base to use satellite at a sound cost. If not, someone will have to pay what will be a high cost per user

I get trying to balance the argument, but to suggest all complaints about Sky have no validity isn't any fairer. The fringe whiners, those who want Sky to cost $20 etc, those are the people to ignore, but Sky has a considerable number of faults, which it's no less reasonable to disregard.

It is possible for Sky to run it's business in a more consumer-friendly way, and have a good market share and profit reasonably from it (lots of technology companies do it). Opening the lines of communication would be a good start. People are forced to draw their own (sometimes unreasonable) conclusions, in the absence of facts.

How does their consumer friendliness and accessibility compare to other companies, take ISP's as one example? Everyone complains about this, its rife in businesses. Its easily solvable by employing enough support staff to cater for the issues as they appear, but when prices increase to create this amazing support structure, there is a revolt about the companies bleeding the consumers dry. Its about being reasonable, or happy to pay

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1609993 11-Aug-2016 10:57

Rikkitic:

Big +1 for the above. It also sums up my view (which some keep misinterpreting) quite nicely.

I dont think we misinterpret your views! :-)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1610016 11-Aug-2016 11:42

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

Big +1 for the above. It also sums up my view (which some keep misinterpreting) quite nicely.

I dont think we misinterpret your views! :-)

I wasn't specifically referring to you, though I wouldn't exclude you. I often see comments from different people that make claims about my positions that simply are not true. One frequently-repeated one is that I want everything for free. I don't know where this started but it keeps coming up in spite of the fact that I have stated many times that I am against piracy, do not indulge in it myself, and believe that a fair price should be paid for whatever good or service is being consumed. As it happens, I am a fan of public broadcasting, which does not exist in any meaningful sense in this country, so I access it abroad with geo-unblocking. I would gladly pay for it but there is no mechanism to do so because it is public broadcasting and that is free by definition. The BBC is a special case but I am prepared to pay the license fee if I can figure out how. The content is superb and I would like to help support it. I am waiting to see what happens in September.

My criticisms here and elsewhere mainly have to do with things like fair pricing in the sense of value for money, which in the case of Sky I question. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. It is just my opinion. I am also strongly opposed to geo-blocking and I have made my views on that clear elsewhere. None of this means I want or expect anything for free and I wish people would quit saying that.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1610043 11-Aug-2016 11:49

I think we could rename this thread to "disgraceful state of Sky services....period."

I have been trying to contact them to ask a simple question for over a week, that is "when does my contract end?" I have tried phoning, emailing and even Facebook message. Replies other that a canned auto response for the FB message has been a giant goose egg.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610073 11-Aug-2016 12:33

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

Big +1 for the above. It also sums up my view (which some keep misinterpreting) quite nicely.

I dont think we misinterpret your views! :-)

I wasn't specifically referring to you, though I wouldn't exclude you. I often see comments from different people that make claims about my positions that simply are not true. One frequently-repeated one is that I want everything for free. I don't know where this started but it keeps coming up in spite of the fact that I have stated many times that I am against piracy, do not indulge in it myself, and believe that a fair price should be paid for whatever good or service is being consumed. As it happens, I am a fan of public broadcasting, which does not exist in any meaningful sense in this country, so I access it abroad with geo-unblocking. I would gladly pay for it but there is no mechanism to do so because it is public broadcasting and that is free by definition. The BBC is a special case but I am prepared to pay the license fee if I can figure out how. The content is superb and I would like to help support it. I am waiting to see what happens in September.

My criticisms here and elsewhere mainly have to do with things like fair pricing in the sense of value for money, which in the case of Sky I question. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. It is just my opinion. I am also strongly opposed to geo-blocking and I have made my views on that clear elsewhere. None of this means I want or expect anything for free and I wish people would quit saying that.

Fair enough. What I see is that as the world has changed, i.e. the internet, models have to change. News is one example. The revenue from selling papers has died, so the news is now newstainment. Its not the journos its what is required to survive as revenue gets stripped. If you want that better news service you cant expect others to subsidise it, it has a cost. And that is what I see here with these topics. A disregard for the reality of costs. Netflix is $13 so i want everything for $13. news is now free online so i want everything I had before. Someone has to pay. And it doesnt mean every business is rorting every consumer. Sky. Its profit is nothing more then sound. Its model is OLD, no, it isn't. Its tech may be old but it far outstrips SVOD in terms of quality and delivery stability. But SVOD is far cheaper, they will get there. I exact Sky will be continuing to provide service to those in the whop whops but we wont see any "good on ya mate" mentioned anywhere, even though it wont be economic.

But the point is everything has a cost, but some seem to disregard that. Its in the interests of business to make a fair profit, but also to offer a fair price otherwise no one will buy the product. If Sky was making $90 profit for those paying $100, well thats not fair. But that isn't the case.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610074 11-Aug-2016 12:35

MikeB4:

I think we could rename this thread to "disgraceful state of Sky services....period."

I have been trying to contact them to ask a simple question for over a week, that is "when does my contract end?" I have tried phoning, emailing and even Facebook message. Replies other that a canned auto response for the FB message has been a giant goose egg.

I cant disagree as I dont have Sky anymore, but when I did, I found them easy to contact. They even gave me a $3 credit years ago for loss of service, which I could not care les about as it had been so rock solid. Maybe the Olympics and SkyGo issues are taking a toll?

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610075 11-Aug-2016 12:38

Fair enough. What I see is that as the world has changed, i.e. the internet, models have to change. News is one example. The revenue from selling papers has died, so the news is now newstainment. Its not the journos its what is required to survive as revenue gets stripped. If you want that better news service you cant expect others to subsidise it, it has a cost. And that is what I see here with these topics. A disregard for the reality of costs. Netflix is $13 so i want everything for $13. news is now free online so i want everything I had before. Someone has to pay. And it doesnt mean every business is rorting every consumer. Sky. Its profit is nothing more then sound. Its model is OLD, no, it isn't. Its tech may be old but it far outstrips SVOD in terms of quality and delivery stability. But SVOD is far cheaper, they will get there. I exact Sky will be continuing to provide service to those in the whop whops but we wont see any "good on ya mate" mentioned anywhere, even though it wont be economic.

But the point is everything has a cost, but some seem to disregard that. Its in the interests of business to make a fair profit, but also to offer a fair price otherwise no one will buy the product. If Sky was making $90 profit for those paying $100, well thats not fair. But that isn't the case.

Umm how are you accessing SkyGo if you don't have a Sky Subscription any longer?

Out of curiosity why don't you have Sky any more?

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