How about this for radical

[englishman64]

I guess the biggest beef on this forum is the cost of sky.
I think the cost of the full package is £37 a month.
I might be a bit naive here but if Sky reduced the price of their full package to say £15 a month wouldn't every man, woman and their dog subscibe.
The sales would go through the roof and advertising revenue would follow.
I'm sure Sky would make even more money !
On second thoughts just take me away in a white coat.

 

[2old4this]

In many other countries, anyone subscribing to satellite has to pay for the equipment. If Sky abandonded the (almost) free equipment & installation for subscribers, then they could no doubt bring down the subscription costs. After all, it costs them the same to transmit whether one person or 10 million are watching. The only other incremental costs they have for new subscribers are for the card and perhaps some telephone support - though even that can be made self-financing by making the helpline a premium-rate pay line (as Canal+ does).

On the other hand, while people in the UK apparently don't seem to mind forking out a small fortune in monthly costs, they don't like (or are unable) to pay a lump sum up front - so not giving away the boxes/dishes/etc would probably spell disaster as well.

The astonishing thing is that while people moan about what they perceive as high subscription fees, an awful lot do buy the top (most expensive) packages, and also pay what truly are ridiculous fees for PPV events & films. Oh, and for all that interactive chaff (games/etc.). The AVERAGE Sky customer spend is approaching GBP 350 per annum. This is almost twice as much as the basic "family package" (already encompassing more than a hundred channels) costs.

Perhaps it's not the subscription fees per se that are the problem, but rather the addiction people have to their boxes...

2old

 

[englishman64]

You are spot on Too old.
I started with BSkyB with them old squarial dishes years ago.
Sky 1 and Sky Sports were free then.
Over the years the monthy cost has gone up and up and the annoying this is the gullible British Public pay it.
Sk* even have the cheek to put adverts on all their pay channels too.
I know of loads of people who went with the On-digital Scam not just to save money (although that was a major factor) but also because Sk* have screwed them over the years.
They saw it as an opportunity to 'get their own back'
It's amazing how many normally 'law abiding' people were happy to 'stick it up Sk*' with dodgy On-dig boxes.
Sk* wont let you choose exactly what channels you want either.
It's a pity all Sk* subscribers don't protest and cease their subscriptions but then again as I said earlier the public just put up with it !

 

[Lesdude]

i agree totally, i remember when all you paid for once you had the equipment was the movie channels, unfortunately peoples ignorance, complacency let, not only $ky get away with extortion but just about every retailer in the country (UK that is). the rich get richer etc... etc... :'(

 

[pixey]

Shame we can't get hold of a hack for sky - that might give murdock something to think about..

 

[rolfw]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 07-May-02 AT 08:42 PM (GMT)]The only thing it would give him to think about, would be how quickly he could get the new cards distributed. LOL

Rolf

 

[BarMoo]

Dear All,

Owe, such sentiments. In fact, earlier this evening, I was speaking to some americans about the Tyson/Lewis (Is On) fight and PPV: crap fight.

America $51.00, UK (cheap, I'm sure), Germany €10.00 - anyway, I got on to all that's PPV (or HBO in particular) - just paying for things :-)

They didn't seem to approve of Carrier's carrying commercials for PPV content (made me realise I am not so abnormal). Additionally, the German PPV had NO commercials. I wonder if Sky did the same ?

Sky seem to want us to pay for all the chocolates in the box - as we decide what is the least expensive centre to choose from.

As most SKY UK subscriber's are stupid, voiceless, ney, castrated - SKY will continue to up their ARPU by abusing our stupidity.

I want native format, un-interuped, logo-free TV for €10.00 - thankfully, I got that (albeit; in german) ;-)

Have Fun from a slightly dis-orinentated,

Mark.

 

[groundsman]

Do you remember the good old days when we used to complain about the £2 rise in the license fee (BBC). We are now willing to pay over double for virtually the same programs that were aired then.
Why can't Sky charge, purely, for what you watch or even break it down to individual channel charges as, even with over 100 channels, there is very little new to watch.

 

[Channel Hopper]

As said before by many others

1) A monopoly of UK satellite programming - part good business sense by the 'Empire', part failure by the competition to see what is going on
2) High charges levied by the broadcaster in the light of easy money available
3) the apparent lethargy of the general public when it comes to direct debits when checking just how much is being sucked out of their bank account on a yearly basis
4) Poor viewing preferences by the public, willing to pay for quantity rather than quality.

 

[jimbo]

Hey peeps am I in the minority (no don't all shout at once!) but I have also been a sky subscriber since the beginning of time and, yes, on the face of it I suppose it may seem a tad expensive. But is it? I pay around £9.00 per week for everything and extra if I want football or special box office stuff. £9.00 per week, what's that, 4 pints of beer. I can drink that in a lunchtime.

Seriously though, despite Rupert being the modern equivilent of a biblical tax collector, I guess without him, we would still be in the doldrums digitally speaking. I think the product he sells is pretty good, anyone seen TV in other countries to compare? As for ITV, they swanned in with an inferior product (technically and programme wise) and without a proper business plan. Of course they didn't last long and when doing a runner overnight they took down a few football league clubs with them. So yeah, I'd like to pay less for my digital entertainment but without Sky I'd probably be drinking another 4 pints a week. That's a thought.

Jimbo

 

[bigrandydavid]

im with u jimbo, i think the monthly fee is excellent value when u put it in context. 20 fags and two pints a week??

 

[rolfw]

The only real gripe that I have with Sky, is the fact that I have to pay for a huge volume of channels that I don't want, in order to get the channels that I do want.

Rolf

 

[Channel Hopper]

Jimbo

Are you on your own at lunchtimes, if not then this would be two pints for you and your drinking mate.

I can see that when reduced doen to its weekly or even daily content the Sky charge looks miniscule, but in another context the tenner a week (unless you are in front of the TV ten hours a day or more), can work out at something close to the minimum wage when you look at the quality material you really make plans to be in front of the TV.

Ive looked at the programme guide of the Sky service and can honestly say that I would see on average one film in the week, plus maybe two programmes off the SciFi channel, and maybe an hour of news debate and a couple of music videos, totalling six hours or so of programming for the tenner. I would have to be selective and ensure I dont get pulled into turning on the box beforehand, or leaving it on after.

Horses for courses I know but I can se that having a medly of good AND bad programme content on a plate, only drags down the percentage of worthwhile time in front of the box. Others are different in their selectivity and can also put up with the costant barrage of advertising (on the SciFi channel this is tedious in the extreme)

 

[englishman64]

I'm with Rolf on this.
There is nothing stopping Sky letting the viewers choose EXACTLY what channels they want rather than make them take one of the various packages.
However my main gripe is adverts.
Why the f*** should there be adverts on Sky when people are paying up to £450 a year (or 276 pints or 103 packets of regal).
I shouldn't say this as it makes me sound sad but there are so many adverts on sky that if I want to watch someting I tape it so I can play it back without 3 4 minute breaks during the bloody program !!!

 

[bigrandydavid]

looking more closely at the package its two sips of lager or three puffs on a woodbine per channel per day so yes sky could allow you to pick and choose your channels but they obviously won`t do that. i could never get `tv` cancer from the number of imaginary fags i dont smoke when i`m not watching nor could i even get `tv` tipsy.
look at it this way, its one 4 pack of bog rolls every day which is nothing more than a severe bout of dihaoreas worth.
i still think its good value even when im constipated.

errrrm..did i make that clear???!?

 

[bigrandydavid]

you could say that sky is `double velvet` quilted bog roll whilst itv digi was that horrible shiny loo roll they used to have in the toilets at school twenty years ago

 

[madharry]

What >I think the monthly fee is excellent value<
I do not agree it's all just films and stuff witch will eventually be seen on F.T.A.
like all the films...
...Sky fee is to much
as is the BBC license fee to .
also for what garbage they air on it also.
I resent paying for BBC1 or channel's some-time's I nether Raleigh view.
...Best thing to do...
Scrap DTT after that big rip off and time wasting of the public interest keep the analog transmitters going.
..no I want Digital I here some say !..

get rid off the multiplex and move existing channels closer-together. then add more .if needed.
and let Sky sat-digital have the rest.(should please him)
after all with this supposed new free-to-air selection coming on Aug/Sep time I bet there's still more free to air on Sky Digital .
and A free to view cards all that's needed.
... also It Says ... The Nokia Mediamaster Free-to-View for a small 100£ gives you access to some 22 Free-to-View
Digital channels without the need for a subscription
...is that why nokia there cutting jobs in production ?...
what a flop ! !
pay Sky 100£ better off !
well some small few that don't have planing for a Mini Dish may get one

Yes I think the government's has more interest ££ in DTT than-they let-on!

Regards Jon

 

[rolfw]

"get rid off the multiplex and move existing channels closer-together. then add more .if needed.
and let Sky sat-digital have the rest.(should please him)"

Can't do that Jon, don't you think they'd have tried it before? They have squeezed all of the analogue channels in that the network will take. That's why many people still can't get channel 5, they are unable to transmit at full power in a lot of areas, or have block excluded certain directions, because of interferance with channels from adjacent transmitter footprints.

With regard to the Nokia redundancies and as of yesterday the Pace ones as well, both companies are making losses in other divisions alonside the DTR maunufacture, the receivers would probably have sold well at launch if it weren't for the uncertainty of the future of DTT.

There are probablty a majority of people in the UK who do not want Pay TV, and these are the people who will longer term buy the DTRs, they will be quite impressed with the 20 or so channels offered. I've certainly had no shortage of orders for the new smaller boxes, in fact delivery has been the problem.

With regard to the value or not of Sky's contribution, I want to watch films at my convenience, not when some ITV or BBC programme planner decides I should. I'll stick with my Sky option thanks.

Rolf

 

[wolsty]

I'm sure you're correct, CH.

And when Murdoch has his monopoly (does anyone see any politician with the courage to stop him?), we'll all find out what expensive mediocrity is. The price of a packet of fags and two pints of beer won't seem like such a good bargain then.

The issue is not the cost of a Sky subscription or PPV television, it's freedom of speech and the ability to see and hear what we wish on television and radio. The price of our acquiescence in his plans to control the media will result in our paying exorbitant subscriptions to view only what Murdoch wants us to see. Don't expect anything radical.

This is not all paranoia and conspiracy theory; any standard text on economic theory will confirm that an organisation with a monopoly will seek to exploit that position. Even the USA, the most powerful capitalist economy the world has ever known, has recognised the dangers posed by monopolies and cartels by creating (and using) draconian anti-trust laws - as Bill Gates knows to his cost. Would that the UK had the same powers (or determination) to resist Murdoch's ambitions.

wolsty




}>

 

[rolfw]

Hmmm, everyone talks of Rupert Murdoch's corporation as a person, corporations have one aim and that is to make money, if they are aiming for domination in a market place, it is only for the purpose of making money.

To attribute human feelings and ambition to a corporation, I feel is misplaced, there will be corporate amdition, but I don't think it comes down to the personal level that is so often inferred.

With regard to monopolies, I can't see how Sky can have much more of a monopoly than they already have. They made the right decisions at a very early stage, beat off first BSB and then ITV Digital (whose own stupidity did them no favours) and are now reaping the dividends, they seem to a greater extent to offer what the public wants out of pay TV.

If you talk to the man in the street and not a satellite hobbyist, or ITV Digital pirate card user, they may complain about Sky, but its normally about the time it takes them to answer the phone, or the stupidity of a particular customer sevices person. It may even be about the extortionate price, but media domination.....doesn't enter the frame.

Rolf