Maybe sky needs to dump satellite content distribution? That is radical and maybe a lifesaver if done properly.
Compare sure, suggest they are the same, but that Sky is just ripping people off, no.
Screw all those people who live in areas without decent internet? Great.
How about this? How about those who find the content they want on NF, get NF, and those who find value in their Sky Subscription, buy Sky, and those with a chip on their shoulder about Sky, get a subscription to NF and don't worry about a service they don't use?
I agree that sky are probably not ripping people off.
But, skys pricing model tricks people into believe they are being ripped off (why can't i just get sky sports etc...).
Maybe sky should have used a fixed fee to cover transmission costs (like an electricity line charges). Then, subscribers could purchase one or more channels/packages on top of the transmission fee.
At least that way, you separate transmission costs from content costs and people can see that. And, if they want, they can order just sky sport.
Thats not a bad idea. Cost Plus. Sky needs the ARPU, about $80 per month. Basic at the old prices helps that, but not now. But it still needs it. Sport is what $30? If stand alone it cant be $30. Maybe they can run Sky as two entities. Not legal entities as per the Cpmpanys Act but internally. Sky Sport and Basic, Basic then being a Netflix and FTA competitor.