Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 25

411 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1776620 5-May-2017 20:42

DarkCypher: Did anyone else currently paying for the monthly option get this at the end of the email?

As you’re currently a recurring month pass customer, as long as you stay on this plan without cancelling your recurring pass, you’ll only pay $55.99* per month until February 2018.

if that isn't a misprint I'm okay with that.

Mmm I'm on monthly now and didn't get that email

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776621 5-May-2017 20:43

Jaxson:

littleheaven:

They've basically switched to forcing people into long-term subscriptions, so you may as well be with Sky (which I suspect is their intention).

Yep, you can see it now.

"Well we tried online streaming and it just wasn't popular."

Or, we tried online streaming and it cost $1700 a year, as quoted by someone else on another thread last week, for 4 or 5 sports, paid OD subscriptions.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776623 5-May-2017 20:46

mattwnz:

BarTender: I wonder if the costs associated with streaming via Akamai just didn't stack up for them as Akamai was taking too much of the pie. Hence why pushing customers back to Satellite means they keep all the profit since it's just a case of sending a tech to install the STB and in most situations the house already has the dish.

That is a good point. People think that things over the internet are free, but it actually costs a lot. But on the flipside, people buying fanpass are providing all the equipment to view it at their cost. Whereas normal over the air transmission has hardware and associate maintenance/ install / troubleshooting costs. Not to mention the problems with reception and rain-fade etc.

Yes, everything has a cost, which I feel is lost on many here. Sky's rights payments are 60% sport. And its not like there are 85 different sports being played. Its huge and it shouldn't be. Sports cost.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776628 5-May-2017 21:03

quickymart:

While I couldn't care less about sports on TV, how did Sky cope in the early 1990's when they first started with three UHF channels? Sport would have cost a fair amount then (certainly three channels was near the cost of Basic today, in dollar terms)...or did they just outbid TVNZ/TV3 for everything?

Sky ran at a lost for many years, also back in the early 90's the rugby players were not paid what they are today some of them still had to work day jobs, there was limited sports, you only had to transmit on UHF (which is a lot cheaper than renting bandwidth from a satellite). There was also not the demand for so many different sports. Back then it was cricket, rugby and netball.

kaczor47

93 posts

Master Geek

#1776659 5-May-2017 21:47

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/92271651/sky-tv-slashes-fan-pass-sports-service

"Sky chief executive John Fellet acknowledged the changes were "bad news". But he said no other major internet television service, including Netflix, offered daily or weekly viewing options. "Netflix doesn't allow you to come in on a Saturday, binge view House of Cards and then disconnect." "

Well, when your chief executive has a difficult time grasping the difference between a TV series (with each season released as a whole) and *live* sports (which cannot be binge watched), your business is doomed.

I can get a whole *season* (9 months) of NHL for NZD 120 (including every live game in 1080p 60fps HD, replays, on demand etc). And these guys are asking for $99/month. Yes...

And yes, this is how demand for illegitimate streams is kept alive.

littleheaven

2130 posts

Uber Geek

#1776669 5-May-2017 22:17

Obviously Mr Fellett is unaware of NowTV in the U.K. They've been selling casual access to sport successfully for some time now. I'd call them a major internet TV service. And his Netflix comparison is ridiculous because Netflix only charges $15 a month. That's not apples with apples by any stretch of the imagination.

Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776671 5-May-2017 22:22

Netflix will actually let you come along and get a whole month for free just by giving them an email address and credit card they have not seen before. So that house of cards binge could cost you $0.

Richard rich.ms

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1776685 5-May-2017 23:14

Fellett as usual seems out of touch with reality and is well passed his use by date. Maybe this will spur on the govt to subsidise key national sports again for all to see...not just those that can afford huge Sky fees.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776689 5-May-2017 23:30

Pumpedd:

Fellett as usual seems out of touch with reality and is well passed his use by date. Maybe this will spur on the govt to subsidise key national sports again for all to see...not just those that can afford huge Sky fees.

If the taxpayer is burdened with rugby then it is only fair that they throw cash at esports as well. However that doesnt seem to have any problem with the idea of people watching online so will probably get left out of any cash being given out.

Richard rich.ms

mattwnz

20163 posts

Uber Geek

#1776700 6-May-2017 01:40

If skys numbers are falling, then they can't put up their fees too much otherwise they will lose too many more. Although there will always be a number who don't really care too much what it costs. So it is a catch 22 situation. Also the less money they are making, the less they can bid for sports. So it means that some of these sports may not get as much money. So it isn't a good situation all around. It is even worse when there are less viewers, because it also means less exposure and potential interest in sports, which isn't a good thing for children. I remember as a kid watching cricket on TV, and that got me into the game. These days many young families don't have sky, so the kids never get the chance to watch it on TV. I think the government has to step in on this. It is also election year. Maybe the party that promises free sport? At least watching it would take peoples minds of what is happening in the rest of the world.

quickymart

13957 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1776708 6-May-2017 07:49

I think the timing of their last price rise was rather unfortunate.
Reported one day in the media: "Sky's subscriber numbers drop..."
Next day: Sky: "We need to raise our prices..."

quickymart

13957 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1776709 6-May-2017 07:50

mattwnz:

If skys numbers are falling, then they can't put up their fees too much otherwise they will lose too many more. Although there will always be a number who don't really care too much what it costs. So it is a catch 22 situation. Also the less money they are making, the less they can bid for sports. So it means that some of these sports may not get as much money. So it isn't a good situation all around. It is even worse when there are less viewers, because it also means less exposure and potential interest in sports, which isn't a good thing for children. I remember as a kid watching cricket on TV, and that got me into the game. These days many young families don't have sky, so the kids never get the chance to watch it on TV. I think the government has to step in on this. It is also election year. Maybe the party that promises free sport? At least watching it would take peoples minds of what is happening in the rest of the world.

Sorry but I wouldn't support my taxpayer dollars going towards sports being shown on TV (I suspect I'm not alone either).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1776760 6-May-2017 09:06

More regulation doesn't always have to mean more cost to the taxpayer. The government could also enact 'balancing' legislation requiring broadcasters to provide so much sport/arts/educational content for every hour of reality crap they shovel at viewers. Something like this exists in other countries. It could also be done here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1776762 6-May-2017 09:10

I'm glad to say I've never paid Sky any money.

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1776782 6-May-2017 09:58

Pumpedd:

Fellett as usual seems out of touch with reality and is well passed his use by date. Maybe this will spur on the govt to subsidise key national sports again for all to see...not just those that can afford huge Sky fees.

God I hope not. I don't want them using my taxpayer money to help people watch Rugby. I'd rather it was for things like health and education! And that's even before the argument about what sports are important enough to warrant govt subsidies... Rugby? Cricket, Netball, Downhill MTB, Ultimate Frisbee?

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 25