Fantastic. So my 3 mixes for £21.50 turns into £25 (but I do get loads of channels I don't want. Fantastic. :mad:
Erm no. I can't remember the exact details, but there was a note regarding customers in your situation and I'm pretty sure it will only cost you £1 more. I'm unable to access the brief at the moment but when I do I will try and be more accurate
Fantastic. So my 3 mixes for £21.50 turns into £25 (but I do get loads of channels I don't want. Fantastic. :mad:
sounds about right, back to paying for something you don't want.
why is there not a decent pay T.v service int his country where you can pay for what you watch?
Erm no. I can't remember the exact details, but there was a note regarding customers in your situation and I'm pretty sure it will only cost you £1 more. I'm unable to access the brief at the moment but when I do I will try and be more accurate
this is the problem when a company have the monopoly on something they do what they like because there is no one around to stop them
I think it's pretty much a given that most people would expect a prise rise of £1. I don't want to put any details on here until I'm 100% sure but he may actually get more channels for his £1 extra. Monolpoly has nothing to do with it and there will be plenty of people who will actually get a lower bill when the multi-room hd charge is removed.
Actually the proposed 2 mix Entertainment pack is 50p per month cheaper than the current price.
Is there any truth in the (possibly misinformed) post in another thread on the HD forum that the HD sub itself (and/or the multiroom sub) is rising by £1 pm?? £10.25 pm post VAT rise is an awkward price and I could see Sky pricing it at, say, £11 pm. Though that was not what the post was suggesting.
I've just double checked and the most anyone's package will increase is by £1. Some people's bill will remain the same, and some will see a reduction. Those who's current mixes don't match the new packs will automatically be upgraded at no extra cost. For example if you have Variety, Style and Kids you will be moved to the Entertainment Extra pack at no extra cost.
Is there any truth in the (possibly misinformed) post in another thread on the HD forum that the HD sub itself (and/or the multiroom sub) is rising by £1 pm?? £10.25 pm post VAT rise is an awkward price and I could see Sky pricing it at, say, £11 pm. Though that was not what the post was suggesting.
The brief we have states that from September, HD pack costing £10.25 will now get you HD channels on all your HD boxes rather than per HD box
I've just double checked and the most anyone's package will increase is by £1. Some people's bill will remain the same, and some will see a reduction. Those who's current mixes don't match the new packs will automatically be upgraded at no extra cost. For example if you have Variety, Style and Kids you will be moved to the Entertainment Extra pack at no extra cost.
Interesting. If that is the case. then I can remove the :mad:
Thanks CTD for giving the info you have. Appreciate it.
Interesting. If that is the case. then I can remove the :mad:
Thanks CTD for giving the info you have. Appreciate it.
Similar boat to you by the sounds of it. We have 3 mixes based on what suits our viewing, not what Sky think we should have. It may only be a couple of quid but the idea of paying for channels that we will never watch doesn't go down well. If anything it actually starts to make it harder to justify the ever-increasing expense.
The problem now lies if/when we go down the HD route. Presumably that will mean taking out one of these new packages is compulsory?
I think it's pretty much a given that most people would expect a prise rise of £1. I don't want to put any details on here until I'm 100% sure but he may actually get more channels for his £1 extra. Monolpoly has nothing to do with it and there will be plenty of people who will actually get a lower bill when the multi-room hd charge is removed.
Actually the proposed 2 mix Entertainment pack is 50p per month cheaper than the current price.
Of cause a monopoly got something to do with it. If Sky had decent competition they would bring their prices down.
But then they would try all ways to put the competition out of business.
That is what they done with BSB and also On Digital, could not bare to have competition so decided to give away their boxes.
so he will get more channels for his £1 extra, no doubt channels he don't want.
when will sky start allowing people to pick their own channel? Oh I forgot they won't, because no one will want majority of crap channels Sky have on their system.
We really need a decent pay T.V system in this country.
Similar boat to you by the sounds of it. We have 3 mixes based on what suits our viewing, not what Sky think we should have. It may only be a couple of quid but the idea of paying for channels that we will never watch doesn't go down well. If anything it actually starts to make it harder to justify the ever-increasing expense.
The problem now lies if/when we go down the HD route. Presumably that will mean taking out one of these new packages is compulsory?
I bet it don't suit your viewing 100%. i looked at Sky again, but this mix idea is stupid, i would still be paying for channels i don't watch
i like nature stuff and documentaries about the earth and space. I thought the Knowledge pack would be ideal, but it got channels like Crime & Investigation and bio, in which I have no interest.
i doubt the new system is any better, in fact I expect it will be worse.
Of cause a monopoly got something to do with it. If Sky had decent competition they would bring their prices down.
But then they would try all ways to put the competition out of business.
That is what they done with BSB and also On Digital, could not bare to have competition so decided to give away their boxes.
so he will get more channels for his £1 extra, no doubt channels he don't want.
when will sky start allowing people to pick their own channel? Oh I forgot they won't, because no one will want majority of crap channels Sky have on their system.
We really need a decent pay T.V system in this country.
The reality my friend is that if you only paid for the channels you actually watch, the cost for those channels would actually be higher and there would be far fewer channels around because each channel would receive subs from far fewer viewers. Bundling of channels enables a greater number and variety of channels to exist.
Many of the channels you like are effectively subsidised by people who don't or barely watch them. You subsidise channels you don't watch. But don't make the mistake of thinking that your costs would fall proportionately if you removed the channels you don't want. Indeed with specialist channels such as you favour with relatively low numbers of "committed" viewers you might have to pay a lot more.
It is a trade off but it is the system used by pay TV providers around the world so it isn't just a monopolistic practice by Sky.
Radiomike is absolutely spot on with his explanation to noise. I certainly don't want to pay an equivalent of £5, or whatever it is, for Man U TV, as an example price for individual channels. Will cost more in the long run as mike explained very well.
Whatever Sky do people will still be self self and moan. Dove as an example - if you don't like or agree with it then cancel, simple as that.
Dove as an example - if you don't like or agree with it then cancel, simple as that.
Confused here. Were you suggesting that I am saying anything selfish - as please show where, if so.
What I meant about Sky World is that it should rise percentage wise the same as other mixes do - thats all.
Given that it is the most costly mix anything above that proportionately becomes a steep rise very easily otherwise.
Sky World does not include special add ons like Man Utd TV - it does not even include ESPN.
It is just a way for Sky to market the various mixes as a unit and obviously persuade people to upgrade (as it saves them money to do so). If Sky World starts to look less good value it will lose Sky money fast and they would have to increase all the mixes. So everyone gains from Sky World not being prohibitively expensive.
Dove, you said "Just hope that Sky World does not rise disproportionately to pay for these lower mix gains as it seemed to do in 2010. " - in your opinion.
I know that Man U TV is not included in the Sky Woprld subscription. I was pointing out that if channels are priced on an individual basis, as an earlier poster suggested they should, and in agreement with Mike, that this would work out as a more expensive option unless you literally only wanted a few subscription channels.
I appreciate your position. Just confused as to how that fits your description of 'self, self, moan'.
Apologies if I was over reacting or misreading your meaning.
I have tried to explain above why Sky World (as, I think, the most popular mix?) needs to keep its customer base as that income prevents the mixes having to be charged at a higher rate.
I have no issue with Sky World rising at the rate of other mixes. But if it rises at a greater rate to compensate Sky for doing deals on lower mix levels the problem will be that Sky World will start to appear less competitive, people will consider downgrading and this would potentially lose Sky a lot of money that they would then have to recoup by putting up the lower mixes.
For now Sky have the balance about right, in my view.
I bet it don't suit your viewing 100%. i looked at Sky again, but this mix idea is stupid, i would still be paying for channels i don't watch
i like nature stuff and documentaries about the earth and space. I thought the Knowledge pack would be ideal, but it got channels like Crime & Investigation and bio, in which I have no interest.
That is true, but at least its broken down into fairly sensible categories so you don't end up with completely unrelated channels. The knowledge pack is certainly one of the better value mixes of the lot IMO.
Someone mentioned VM earlier and that is the perfect example of how not to to do it, channels are scattered about all over the place and in some cases you don't even get the +1 equivalents unless you opt for a higher pack. Prefer rock music over dance? Tough shit Billy, that will be an extra £12. You want Comedy Central? No problem, the +1 and Extra channel are only for XL customers though. Madness.
The reality my friend is that if you only paid for the channels you actually watch, the cost for those channels would actually be higher and there would be far fewer channels around because each channel would receive subs from far fewer viewers. Bundling of channels enables a greater number and variety of channels to exist.
Many of the channels you like are effectively subsidised by people who don't or barely watch them. You subsidise channels you don't watch. But don't make the mistake of thinking that your costs would fall proportionately if you removed the channels you don't want. Indeed with specialist channels such as you favour with relatively low numbers of "committed" viewers you might have to pay a lot more.
It is a trade off but it is the system used by pay TV providers around the world so it isn't just a monopolistic practice by Sky.
What about allowing us to pick channels to stick into a bundle, So instead of sky choosing what to put into a mix, we can do it?
That may even get me to part with some money to get pay T.V.
Just because something is used world wide, don't mean it it the best system, Sky could be the first one to try something different., but then I suppose they don't have to with the amount of people willing to pay for stuff they don't watch.
It seems like people will pay what ever Sky ask them to and for what ever Sky want them to pay for.
i looked at the Sky site yesterday and they say about changes on there, but they give no idea what the changes will be, so if I was going to get Sky that would put me off for a start.
The only system we got in this country that allows us to pay for what we watch is BT Vision, but you need Bt broadband for that and Bt broadband is to be honest a bit naff. Also Bt is now more or less forcing people to take out their phone service as well when you take their broadband.
As I said, too much of a monopoly sky have got and when any other company comes in Sky makes sure they don't last long.
The only reason Virgin and even BT Vision is still going is because they are large companies.
Radiomike is absolutely spot on with his explanation to noise. I certainly don't want to pay an equivalent of £5, or whatever it is, for Man U TV, as an example price for individual channels. Will cost more in the long run as mike explained very well.
Whatever Sky do people will still be self self and moan. Dove as an example - if you don't like or agree with it then cancel, simple as that.
there could be a choice, if you want to go and pay for channels you don't watch then go for it, but then people that only want a certain amount of channels should be allowed to bundle them into their own mix or is sky worried that 90% of the crap channels they have will be missed out?
Come on, I like mature stuff, so if I choose the Knowledge pack I would end up getting the Bio channel, I got no interest in how so called stars live their lives, so I be paying for a Channel I don't watch.
This new system that is coming out looks worse, it seems you have to pay more for even more stuff you may not watch.
The other problem I have and this is not just with Sky, is that they add stuff on and say it is free and then put the price up
Sky anytime+ for instance, sure it is free if you got Sky broadband, but the price goes up to cover it,
I like nature programmes and thought about getting Sky again for them, but not paying for stuff i don't want and I certainly would not pay a extra tenner so I could see them in HD.
That is true, but at least its broken down into fairly sensible categories so you don't end up with completely unrelated channels. The knowledge pack is certainly one of the better value mixes of the lot IMO.
Someone mentioned VM earlier and that is the perfect example of how not to to do it, channels are scattered about all over the place and in some cases you don't even get the +1 equivalents unless you opt for a higher pack. Prefer rock music over dance? Tough shit Billy, that will be an extra £12. You want Comedy Central? No problem, the +1 and Extra channel are only for XL customers though. Madness.
Why do you want +1 anyway? We got more than enough +1 on Freeview, a waste of space to be honest and certainly on Freeview tha space could be used to improve picture quality on other channels
On Sky/Virgin I see even less reason to have +1 after all both services got PVr systems, so people can record the programme if they are that interested.
I record 99% of the stuff i watch these days using my Digitalstream HD PVR, no need for +1 and give it a couple more years and more people will have a PVR, it is only people like my Father who will not bother with a PVR.
That is true, but at least its broken down into fairly sensible categories so you don't end up with completely unrelated channels. The knowledge pack is certainly one of the better value mixes of the lot IMO.
Someone mentioned VM earlier and that is the perfect example of how not to to do it, channels are scattered about all over the place and in some cases you don't even get the +1 equivalents unless you opt for a higher pack. Prefer rock music over dance? Tough shit Billy, that will be an extra £12. You want Comedy Central? No problem, the +1 and Extra channel are only for XL customers though. Madness.
If you want the + channels why do you not get Freesat, they are tons of them on there all for Free?
Comments
Erm no. I can't remember the exact details, but there was a note regarding customers in your situation and I'm pretty sure it will only cost you £1 more. I'm unable to access the brief at the moment but when I do I will try and be more accurate
sounds about right, back to paying for something you don't want.
why is there not a decent pay T.v service int his country where you can pay for what you watch?
this is the problem when a company have the monopoly on something they do what they like because there is no one around to stop them
Actually the proposed 2 mix Entertainment pack is 50p per month cheaper than the current price.
The brief we have states that from September, HD pack costing £10.25 will now get you HD channels on all your HD boxes rather than per HD box
Interesting. If that is the case. then I can remove the :mad:
Thanks CTD for giving the info you have. Appreciate it.
No probs mate. Just giving you the same details we have. Apparently all customers will be informed via mailshot or email in July.
The problem now lies if/when we go down the HD route. Presumably that will mean taking out one of these new packages is compulsory?
Of cause a monopoly got something to do with it. If Sky had decent competition they would bring their prices down.
But then they would try all ways to put the competition out of business.
That is what they done with BSB and also On Digital, could not bare to have competition so decided to give away their boxes.
so he will get more channels for his £1 extra, no doubt channels he don't want.
when will sky start allowing people to pick their own channel? Oh I forgot they won't, because no one will want majority of crap channels Sky have on their system.
We really need a decent pay T.V system in this country.
I bet it don't suit your viewing 100%. i looked at Sky again, but this mix idea is stupid, i would still be paying for channels i don't watch
i like nature stuff and documentaries about the earth and space. I thought the Knowledge pack would be ideal, but it got channels like Crime & Investigation and bio, in which I have no interest.
i doubt the new system is any better, in fact I expect it will be worse.
It be nice to pick individual channels.
and i looked
The reality my friend is that if you only paid for the channels you actually watch, the cost for those channels would actually be higher and there would be far fewer channels around because each channel would receive subs from far fewer viewers. Bundling of channels enables a greater number and variety of channels to exist.
Many of the channels you like are effectively subsidised by people who don't or barely watch them. You subsidise channels you don't watch. But don't make the mistake of thinking that your costs would fall proportionately if you removed the channels you don't want. Indeed with specialist channels such as you favour with relatively low numbers of "committed" viewers you might have to pay a lot more.
It is a trade off but it is the system used by pay TV providers around the world so it isn't just a monopolistic practice by Sky.
Thanks, that sounds good news.
Just hope that Sky World does not rise disproportionately to pay for these lower mix gains as it seemed to do in 2010.
Whatever Sky do people will still be self self and moan. Dove as an example - if you don't like or agree with it then cancel, simple as that.
Confused here. Were you suggesting that I am saying anything selfish - as please show where, if so.
What I meant about Sky World is that it should rise percentage wise the same as other mixes do - thats all.
Given that it is the most costly mix anything above that proportionately becomes a steep rise very easily otherwise.
Sky World does not include special add ons like Man Utd TV - it does not even include ESPN.
It is just a way for Sky to market the various mixes as a unit and obviously persuade people to upgrade (as it saves them money to do so). If Sky World starts to look less good value it will lose Sky money fast and they would have to increase all the mixes. So everyone gains from Sky World not being prohibitively expensive.
I know that Man U TV is not included in the Sky Woprld subscription. I was pointing out that if channels are priced on an individual basis, as an earlier poster suggested they should, and in agreement with Mike, that this would work out as a more expensive option unless you literally only wanted a few subscription channels.
Apologies if I was over reacting or misreading your meaning.
I have tried to explain above why Sky World (as, I think, the most popular mix?) needs to keep its customer base as that income prevents the mixes having to be charged at a higher rate.
I have no issue with Sky World rising at the rate of other mixes. But if it rises at a greater rate to compensate Sky for doing deals on lower mix levels the problem will be that Sky World will start to appear less competitive, people will consider downgrading and this would potentially lose Sky a lot of money that they would then have to recoup by putting up the lower mixes.
For now Sky have the balance about right, in my view.
Someone mentioned VM earlier and that is the perfect example of how not to to do it, channels are scattered about all over the place and in some cases you don't even get the +1 equivalents unless you opt for a higher pack.
What about allowing us to pick channels to stick into a bundle, So instead of sky choosing what to put into a mix, we can do it?
That may even get me to part with some money to get pay T.V.
Just because something is used world wide, don't mean it it the best system, Sky could be the first one to try something different., but then I suppose they don't have to with the amount of people willing to pay for stuff they don't watch.
It seems like people will pay what ever Sky ask them to and for what ever Sky want them to pay for.
i looked at the Sky site yesterday and they say about changes on there, but they give no idea what the changes will be, so if I was going to get Sky that would put me off for a start.
The only system we got in this country that allows us to pay for what we watch is BT Vision, but you need Bt broadband for that and Bt broadband is to be honest a bit naff. Also Bt is now more or less forcing people to take out their phone service as well when you take their broadband.
As I said, too much of a monopoly sky have got and when any other company comes in Sky makes sure they don't last long.
The only reason Virgin and even BT Vision is still going is because they are large companies.
there could be a choice, if you want to go and pay for channels you don't watch then go for it, but then people that only want a certain amount of channels should be allowed to bundle them into their own mix or is sky worried that 90% of the crap channels they have will be missed out?
Come on, I like mature stuff, so if I choose the Knowledge pack I would end up getting the Bio channel, I got no interest in how so called stars live their lives, so I be paying for a Channel I don't watch.
This new system that is coming out looks worse, it seems you have to pay more for even more stuff you may not watch.
The other problem I have and this is not just with Sky, is that they add stuff on and say it is free and then put the price up
Sky anytime+ for instance, sure it is free if you got Sky broadband, but the price goes up to cover it,
I like nature programmes and thought about getting Sky again for them, but not paying for stuff i don't want and I certainly would not pay a extra tenner so I could see them in HD.
Why do you want +1 anyway? We got more than enough +1 on Freeview, a waste of space to be honest and certainly on Freeview tha space could be used to improve picture quality on other channels
On Sky/Virgin I see even less reason to have +1 after all both services got PVr systems, so people can record the programme if they are that interested.
I record 99% of the stuff i watch these days using my Digitalstream HD PVR, no need for +1 and give it a couple more years and more people will have a PVR, it is only people like my Father who will not bother with a PVR.
If you want the + channels why do you not get Freesat, they are tons of them on there all for Free?