Sky Basic split into two packages

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky Basic split into two packages

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 19

171 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1965891 28-Feb-2018 14:14

old3eyes:

rugrat:

login:

Their obvious mistake is not to include all the public access free to air channels (TV1, 2, 3, Prime, Bravo ...) in *BOTH* the Sky Starter and Sky Entertainment packages.

Those of us with MySky want to be able to both watch and record programs using their MySky device. The only way to do this under the Starter and Entertainment packages is to have both. So nothing has changed for us.

The way I read it Sky Starter is the new minimum package. Nothing else can be brought until Sky Starter is purchased.

So can't buy Entertainment package without Sky Starter.

If that's the case then it's no go for me.

Yes, that makes sense. In which case nothing has changed for me with the Sky Basic subscription and MySky. There is no incentive for me to remain with Sky, as before.

PottsyNZ

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#1965897 28-Feb-2018 14:21

vexxxboy:

Spyware:

vexxxboy:

why do people knock Sky for charging for HD yet give Netflix a free pass for doing the same thing.

Because Sky's mpeg2 dross is substandard and not even fit for transmission (my opinion).

The quality is not the point , both charge for HD and Sky is hammered for it. Netflix isn't

Netflix:

Basic Stream in standard definition (SD) on one device at a time. $9.99 Standard Stream in (up to) high-definition (HD) on two devices at a time.

$12.99 Premium Stream in (up to) 4K definition on four devices at a time. $15.99

$3 more for HD and another device $6 more for 4 devices and 4k Meanwhile Sky is $10 just for HD, 90% of the HD channels are premium channels so you're paying twice for said HD...the rest are freeview channels. Also "HD" is a pretty loose term given their bitrate.

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 581

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1965922 28-Feb-2018 14:55

networkn:
MileHighKiwi: If, like me, you have Sky only to get the Sports package, a $25 discount is pretty good.

Starter = $24.91
Sports = $29.99

Total = $54.90 for "Sports" is how I view it. Works out less than $13 per week. Plus the kids channels are useful for our family so a win win really.

I'm about to come off the Sky deals package and will switch to Vodafone TV. Pretty sure you don't need HD ticket on that.

Well it's unclear if this includes MySkyHDI or HD Ticket, which could easily come to another $20-25 a month.

I'm assuming that I will be able to do this via Vodafone TV and that HD is not extra. It wasn't extra under Vodafones old offering.

Wash

57 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 16

#1965955 28-Feb-2018 15:20

MileHighKiwi:

I'm assuming that I will be able to do this via Vodafone TV and that HD is not extra. It wasn't extra under Vodafones old offering.

From what I can gather, Vodafone aren't offering the new Sky Starter pack at launch: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2018/02/vodafone-customers-won-t-get-sky-tv-price-cut.html

B1GGLZ

1961 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 136

#1965958 28-Feb-2018 15:31

Hmmm. We dumped Sky a couple of years back because we were paying $50/mth and only watching History Channel and occasionally a couple of others. About 1/3 of the Channels in their new Basic we already get FTA on UHF and the rest are of no interest so why would I pay for that. The only thing that may entice us back is if we were able to exclude Basic and get Entertainment plus Sport. Being unable to do this means there's no difference to what there was before we dumped them and they are losing a possible new cheaper subscription from us if they played ball and were reasonable.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1965960 28-Feb-2018 15:34

vexxxboy:

mattwnz:

vexxxboy:

why do people knock Sky for charging for HD yet give Netflix a free pass for doing the same thing.

I don't use netflix myself, so didn't know they did that. However lightbox doesn't. Also the price difference to upgrade is't that much with netflix is it? PLus netflix is far cheaper to begin with, so people expect IMO that if you are paying a far higher price, that they could throw that in as standard, if you are going to that expense.

25% more if you want HD

Percenage wise it doesn't look good, but dollar wise it is a lot less ($3.50 only), and the base price is also a lot less. It is a case where percentages can be used to support a certain point of view. You could also argue that the HD upgrade price of netflix is only around the 1/3 the price of STV eg $3.50 vs $9.99.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1965963 28-Feb-2018 15:39

B1GGLZ:

Hmmm. We dumped Sky a couple of years back because we were paying $50/mth and only watching History Channel and occasionally a couple of others. About 1/3 of the Channels in their new Basic we already get FTA on UHF and the rest are of no interest so why would I pay for that. The only thing that may entice us back is if we were able to exclude Basic and get Entertainment plus Sport. Being unable to do this means there's no difference to what there was before we dumped them and they are losing a possible new cheaper subscription from us if they played ball and were reasonable.

I think it is good for those who really only get sky to watch sport. IMO if you do watch a lot of sport, the price is quite reasonable. Infact I think sky does offer quite good value for money if you use it as your primary source of entertainment and watch a lot of sport. With streaming services, it is very fragmented, and you need multiple services to get similar content. But what I don't like is that they still have adverts on it. A lot of their revenue must come from advertising, so if subscriber numbers drop, so does the amount they can get for advertising, so it becomes a chicken and egg thing. IMO they need a total shakeup, not just fiddling at the corners.

kbkiwi

56 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#1965975 28-Feb-2018 16:02

OK, this is a generous move from sky.

Yes the new ~$25 basic package is rather pathetic content wise, but many people who sign up primarily for sport would say they exact same thing about the previous ~$50 basic package.

Almost the entirely of Sky’s business is built around the Sport rights - which are hugely expensive, and in a nation of only 4.7 million people, it unfortunately isn’t feasible for sky to offer it’s content much cheaper than it is now.

Sky Profit margin is only 13%. this means for every $1 dollar it makes from customers/advertisers - it makes a profit of 13c.

Therefore if you turned Sky into a charity making zero profits - the price would only be roughly 13% less than it is now - which I doubt would satisfy the moaners on here who apparently want everything way cheaper than that.

The real villain in the price of everyones Sky subscription is blindingly obvious: the sports entities charging them for broadcasts rights, with the bulk of it being the NZRU. (To be fair to NZRU they are simply making good business decisions in their own interests).

I do feel for those who dont watch sport - becuase even if they don’t subscribe to their sport channels, you are still effectively subsidising the sports viewers. Totally understand these subscribers ditching their subscriptions and turning to alternatives like Netflix/lightbox etc which have plenty of good content.

Starscream122

568 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 101
Inactive user

#1965981 28-Feb-2018 16:13

Cheaper for a short time until they catch it up with their yearly price hikes

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1965985 28-Feb-2018 16:18

kbkiwi: OK, this is a generous move from sky.

Yes the new ~$25 basic package is rather pathetic content wise, but many people who sign up primarily for sport would say they exact same thing about the previous ~$50 basic package.

Almost the entirely of Sky’s business is built around the Sport rights - which are hugely expensive, and in a nation of only 4.7 million people, it unfortunately isn’t feasible for sky to offer it’s content much cheaper than it is now.

Sky Profit margin is only 13%. this means for every $1 dollar it makes from customers/advertisers - it makes a profit of 13c.

Therefore if you turned Sky into a charity making zero profits - the price would only be roughly 13% less than it is now - which I doubt would satisfy the moaners on here who apparently want everything way cheaper than that.

The real villain in the price of everyones Sky subscription is blindingly obvious: the sports entities charging them for broadcasts rights, with the bulk of it being the NZRU. (To be fair to NZRU they are simply making good business decisions in their own interests).

I do feel for those who dont watch sport - becuase even if they don’t subscribe to their sport channels, you are still effectively subsidising the sports viewers. Totally understand these subscribers ditching their subscriptions and turning to alternatives like Netflix/lightbox etc which have plenty of good content.

Fully agree, and this move is for sport, to get back sports subscribers.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1966022 28-Feb-2018 17:37

Sorry SkyNet, I still wouldn't buy ya service.

Dell

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

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1966038 28-Feb-2018 18:01

kbkiwi: OK, this is a generous move from sky.

Yes the new ~$25 basic package is rather pathetic content wise, but many people who sign up primarily for sport would say they exact same thing about the previous ~$50 basic package.

Almost the entirely of Sky’s business is built around the Sport rights - which are hugely expensive, and in a nation of only 4.7 million people, it unfortunately isn’t feasible for sky to offer it’s content much cheaper than it is now.

Sky Profit margin is only 13%. this means for every $1 dollar it makes from customers/advertisers - it makes a profit of 13c.

Therefore if you turned Sky into a charity making zero profits - the price would only be roughly 13% less than it is now - which I doubt would satisfy the moaners on here who apparently want everything way cheaper than that.

The real villain in the price of everyones Sky subscription is blindingly obvious: the sports entities charging them for broadcasts rights, with the bulk of it being the NZRU. (To be fair to NZRU they are simply making good business decisions in their own interests).

I do feel for those who dont watch sport - becuase even if they don’t subscribe to their sport channels, you are still effectively subsidising the sports viewers. Totally understand these subscribers ditching their subscriptions and turning to alternatives like Netflix/lightbox etc which have plenty of good content.

I think it needs to work out a way of cutting costs. High paid staff I am sure doesn't help, especially if they aren't really adapting the business model, and are largely running in autopilot. But then you have high hardware costs, installers, tech staff, transmission costs etc, which laregely don't apply for streaming services. For the last decade it has been pretty much the same old formula, apart from testing the market with online services. I think the problem is that things needed to change years ago. But changes likely would have come at the cost of lower divideds for shareholders, at least short term, as they reinvested in a new model. Instead they seem to have just coasted along with the old model, which at some stage would become irrelevant, but the writing has been on the wall for years. I guess some businesses do have a use by date. eg Kodak, the horse & cart etc.

Loismustdye

942 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 256

Trusted

#1966039 28-Feb-2018 18:02

This is a win for us, the basic package is good for what we watch and the kids channels.
Add in sports and the (pseudo)HD and mysky, and sport and for $80 I’m happy.

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#1966042 28-Feb-2018 18:07

So some more geek-ish analysis (in responce to Paul Brislen perhaps?)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12003757

Pretty much what we all surmised in the 'other' sky thread of epicness and many pages re needing the infrastructure to compete since it's grasp hold of OSB probably won't be let go.

clod

64 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1966044 28-Feb-2018 18:08

Well thats typical ZB news item Sky isn't interested in its existing customers, just new ones. No suprises there then.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 19