Looking at the Festive schedules for Sky's main family entertainment channel it is serving up a miserly 21½ hours of what is described as new programming that means 96% of Sky 1 will be 96% stuffed full of repeats. At over £20 a month (£240) Sky are surely roasting their customers nuts?
Sky has more repeats than Harry Hill's TV burps.
On one day 20 Dec BBC1 alone will provided around 10 hours of what could be described as new programming.
Meanwhile on Sky 1 more than half its new programming is not in peak time and is football related leaving a paltry 10½ hours in peak time spread across 2 weeks.
On Christmas Day there is only 10 minutes of new programme, which is The Queen's Speech. On 30 Dec there are no new programmes and the highlight and only new programme on New Year's Eve are the London fireworks lasting 20 minutes.
That confirms how London centric Sky is and has it arm firmly wedged up the backside of its viewers stuffing them full of repeats so they can't get to the phone and cancel the extremely poor value £240 a year subscription.
I'm constantly amazed millions pay sky each month for endless repeats and shit USA imports. It just proves my theory that folk have more money than brains.
I gave up Sky last year after being with them for over a decade and never looked back.
I used to like documentaries, factual programme and science, and so had the Knowledge pack. However all of the discovery channels started showing scripted 'reality' programmes and passing them of as history and science. What good programmes they did have they repeated so many times I could in total fact repeat the whole script.
I now shamelessly download the few programmes I want to see.
I do agree that Sky 1 is dire and hardly a flagship channel. It's just cheap shit that costs very little to serve up to their lowest paying customers. They change more for sports and movie and then charge you more yet again if to dared to actually want it in HD.
Yes, they are out to fleece people so they are best avoided.
You do realise that "downloading" the programmes without the copyright owners' consent is effectively stealing (although it is debatable as to whether the end user or the company making it avaiable for download is committing the crime, or whether it's both parties), not massively different from going into a store and shoplifting DVD's.
Most of the Sky channels rely heavily on US imports and drama, which all tend to take a break for the month of December. So not surprising they have nothing "new" on the schedule on the Christmas run up.
The main reason for this has to be that Sky has now mainly neglected Sky 1 in favour of Sky Atlantic and even Sky Living, Sky 1 though is where they usually show their new British commissions, but yes this is quite a weak Christmas for them, whether a Sky critic or not they have at least commissioned some quite good shows on Sky 1 such as Stella and Ross Kemp On Gangs, but are still way behind the BBC & ITV despite having lots of money to poach talent from them.
With the exceptions of Doctor Who and The Wrong Mans, everything I'll watch over this festive period will be on the pay-TV side of things. The FTA offering this year is pretty poor so I'm in the process of downloading a few things from Sky's On Demand service.
I used to like documentaries, factual programme and science, and so had the Knowledge pack. However all of the discovery channels started showing scripted 'reality' programmes and passing them of as history and science..
This actually irritated me more than repeats. I really liked top class factual programmes and documentaries in the past but somehow Discovery to History are now full of cheap reality shows that have nothing to do with documentaries as Sky try to sell them.
I did mention this to customer services when they asked me why I was cancelling I told them bring back to proper Discovery & History channels I might come back
Anyway what is amazing is that I don't miss Sky anymore, as recordings from Freeview HD channels soon pile up in their folders and there is always something ready to watch when I want to.
This actually irritated me more than repeats. I really liked top class factual programmes and documentaries in the past but somehow Discovery to History are now full of cheap reality shows that have nothing to do with documentaries as Sky try to sell them.
I did mention this to customer services when they asked me why I was cancelling I told them bring back to proper Discovery & History channels I might come back .
the content those channels put out has nothing to do with Sky.
but of course you knew that, but it didn't fit in with your agenda.
I'm constantly amazed millions pay sky each month for endless repeats and shit USA imports. It just proves my theory that some folk have more money than they really need so spend a bit of it on things that add to the gaiety of life.
Fixed your unpleasant comment, thanks.
The same argument went on in the Sky sub-forum recently. The answer is always the same. People will pay what they're happy to pay, or will pay for what they want to see, not you think they should see. Personally I like a few more channels in HD and some sport, but to get that I have to pay for a load of stuff that's of no interest at all. Bovvered? Not really. If it comes down it won't be by much, maybe by another bottle of wine per month. Hardly worth the angst tbh.
Sky is a complete rip off but a lot of people are wealthy and can afford it. They also spend more than anyone else on marketing. I think if people did the maths and average out how much they pay per show they watch on sky versus the rest, they'd realise its terrible value but of course no one has time to do that.
Looking at the Festive schedules for Sky's main family entertainment channel it is serving up a miserly 21½ hours of what is described as new programming that means 96% of Sky 1 will be 96% stuffed full of repeats. At over £20 a month (£240) Sky are surely roasting their customers nuts?
Sky has more repeats than Harry Hill's TV burps.
On one day 20 Dec BBC1 alone will provided around 10 hours of what could be described as new programming.
Meanwhile on Sky 1 more than half its new programming is not in peak time and is football related leaving a paltry 10½ hours in peak time spread across 2 weeks.
On Christmas Day there is only 10 minutes of new programme, which is The Queen's Speech. On 30 Dec there are no new programmes and the highlight and only new programme on New Year's Eve are the London fireworks lasting 20 minutes.
That confirms how London centric Sky is and has it arm firmly wedged up the backside of its viewers stuffing them full of repeats so they can't get to the phone and cancel the extremely poor value £240 a year subscription.
OK that is Sky 1 much like ITV1 and BBC1 will be, but what about the other 200+ channels that come with the £20 ???
You could point to BBC 2 or ITV 3 any day and say it is full of repeats so both BBC and ITV should be called out for being a rip off!
Those are really the equivalent of Sky 1 in terms of free to air. Not BBC 1.
Over Christmas on Sky's other channels there are movie premiers of major films such as Noah and Frozen. Many premier league matches. And original made for TV stuff on the Arts channels such as the shop window performances that ran up to Christmas Eve.
Even on Sky's entertainment channels there are new Stella and Simpson's Christmas Specials and the excellent 'Little Crackers' in one block - which have some hidden gems by various leading UK performers.
Sky is a complete rip off but a lot of people are wealthy and can afford it. They also spend more than anyone else on marketing. I think if people did the maths and average out how much they pay per show they watch on sky versus the rest, they'd realise its terrible value but of course no one has time to do that.
They're too busy making all that money they then waste on Sky. Which is surprising, given how stupid some people on this forum seem to think Sky customers are. 10 million dumb and lucky homes in the UK - what are the odds?
I have a Sky subscription, and I am totally mad about how their flagship channel Sky1 just wants people to go 'hey look sport, want to watch it on our flagship channel Sky1 because you are f!£KING SKINT!'
It just pisses me off...And that's not the only thing I hate, BT took my F!"KING ESPN on my Sky subscription over some stupid channel called BT Sport?!?! (i hope that channel will die in hell) And i've hated sports after that.
We are certainly not rich but by force of circumstance watch a lot of TV. Far from rich thickos as some on this thread appear to suggest we must be for having the full Sky package we have it because we watch it enough (2 - 3 hours per day probably) to make it worthwhile.
If we were younger, able to go out on holiday more etc etc then we might re-evaluate our priorities. But TV is important in our circumstances and we have judged Sky worth paying for - though not at any price. We know the limit above which we would not go with price rises etc.
I think people have more sense than some anti Sky zealots really give them credit for.
And - also - some of those who fought hard to ensure Sky do not get everything and it must be spread to other channels because Sky are evil/greedy etc etc have - in reality - just created new pay TV behemoths. As THIS is the future. Not FTA TV.
And these now share the pay stuff between them at ever increasing multiple subs.
So this sort of Sky hatred has created a world where TV now costs much more to access than in the age when Sky was the only player alongside the terrestrials.
Not to mention that Sky invested in new things like HD and 3 D and drove these ahead of the terrestrials in a way that could never have occurred without Sky's pay structure.
The FTA channels gain benefits from this progress forged by Sky investment.
The super rich Sky's miserly Christmas offerings to its Sky 1 subscribers.
[B]20-Dec[/B] [B]Mins[/B]
8:00:00 AM 60 The Fantasy Football Club
10:00:00 AM 180 Soccer AM
12:00:00 PM 60 Wrestling
1:30:00 PM 30 Birdman Special
[B]21-Dec[/B]
6:00:00 PM 30 The Simpsons
[B]22-Dec [/B]
8:00:00 PM 30 Modern Family
8:30:00 PM 30 Trollied
9:00:00 PM 90 Stella
[B]23-Dec[/B]
8:00:00 PM 60 The Flash
[B]24-Dec[/B]
8:30:00 PM 30 The Simpsons
10:00:00 PM 90 Stella
[B]25-Dec[/B]
3:00:00 PM 10 The Queen
[B]26-Dec[/B]
8:30:00 PM 120 Agatha Raisin: The Quiche of Death
Sky is a complete rip off but a lot of people are wealthy and can afford it. They also spend more than anyone else on marketing. I think if people did the maths and average out how much they pay per show they watch on sky versus the rest, they'd realise its terrible value but of course no one has time to do that.
Sky's audience has traditionally been the less well off - just drive round any (ex) council estate and count the dishes. (Which are also the social groups who are most susceptible to advertising, hence the enormous amount of promotion.)
Generally, the further up the pay / social scale you go, the less TV do the people watch. Not just less Sky, but fewer hours, overall.
TV has become the way of filling your time if you haven't got anything better such as socialising, going out or any hobbies and you don't like reading.
Looking at the Festive schedules for Sky's main family entertainment channel it is serving up a miserly 21½ hours of what is described as new programming that means 96% of Sky 1 will be 96% stuffed full of repeats. At over £20 a month (£240) Sky are surely roasting their customers nuts?
Sky has more repeats than Harry Hill's TV burps.
On one day 20 Dec BBC1 alone will provided around 10 hours of what could be described as new programming.
Meanwhile on Sky 1 more than half its new programming is not in peak time and is football related leaving a paltry 10½ hours in peak time spread across 2 weeks.
On Christmas Day there is only 10 minutes of new programme, which is The Queen's Speech. On 30 Dec there are no new programmes and the highlight and only new programme on New Year's Eve are the London fireworks lasting 20 minutes.
That confirms how London centric Sky is and has it arm firmly wedged up the backside of its viewers stuffing them full of repeats so they can't get to the phone and cancel the extremely poor value £240 a year subscription.
For the record
I do not think going to a premiership football match is worth it
or Cinema
or Theatre
or drinking in a pub
or using an i-phone
or going to an expensive restaurant
or going abroad on holiday
or smoking
or taking happy drugs
or buying a CD or DVD
or buying coffee in a coffee shop
As we are told many times by people who do not think Sky is worth it, I thought I would add a just few of my own.
Sky's audience has traditionally been the less well off - just drive round any (ex) council estate and count the dishes. (Which are also the social groups who are most susceptible to advertising, hence the enormous amount of promotion.)
Generally, the further up the pay / social scale you go, the less TV do the people watch. Not just less Sky, but fewer hours, overall.
TV has become the way of filling your time if you haven't got anything better such as socialising, going out or any hobbies and you don't like reading.
Excellent point.
I tend to agree, most Sky subscribers I know are people who aren't wealthy at all. Some of them are the sort of people who will pay £80 for every Sky channel, then moan on Facebook or DS about the £12 TV licence, "cos the BBC is a haven for paedos innit"...
There's a word for people with such ignorance like this, but I'll leave that to your imaginations!
You do realise that "downloading" the programmes without the copyright owners' consent is effectively stealing (although it is debatable as to whether the end user or the company making it avaiable for download is committing the crime, or whether it's both parties), not massively different from going into a store and shoplifting DVD's.
No I had absolutely no idea about this whatsoever. I will of course stop it immediately and give all my money to those nice people at Sky TV.
Comments
You do realise that "downloading" the programmes without the copyright owners' consent is effectively stealing (although it is debatable as to whether the end user or the company making it avaiable for download is committing the crime, or whether it's both parties), not massively different from going into a store and shoplifting DVD's.
If that offering is not attractive either don't subscribe or cancel.
Personally I never watch Sky 1 at any time of the year, so clearly I'm not bothered about their Xmas offering.
One night down the pub will cost me far more than a basic subscription to Sky for a month.
One night per weekend per month in the pub, will easily cover a full HD Sports & Movies package for a month.
This actually irritated me more than repeats. I really liked top class factual programmes and documentaries in the past but somehow Discovery to History are now full of cheap reality shows that have nothing to do with documentaries as Sky try to sell them.
I did mention this to customer services when they asked me why I was cancelling I told them bring back to proper Discovery & History channels I might come back
Anyway what is amazing is that I don't miss Sky anymore, as recordings from Freeview HD channels soon pile up in their folders and there is always something ready to watch when I want to.
the content those channels put out has nothing to do with Sky.
but of course you knew that, but it didn't fit in with your agenda.
The same argument went on in the Sky sub-forum recently. The answer is always the same. People will pay what they're happy to pay, or will pay for what they want to see, not you think they should see. Personally I like a few more channels in HD and some sport, but to get that I have to pay for a load of stuff that's of no interest at all. Bovvered? Not really. If it comes down it won't be by much, maybe by another bottle of wine per month. Hardly worth the angst tbh.
OK that is Sky 1 much like ITV1 and BBC1 will be, but what about the other 200+ channels that come with the £20 ???
Because mostly they are complete junk.
You could point to BBC 2 or ITV 3 any day and say it is full of repeats so both BBC and ITV should be called out for being a rip off!
Those are really the equivalent of Sky 1 in terms of free to air. Not BBC 1.
Over Christmas on Sky's other channels there are movie premiers of major films such as Noah and Frozen. Many premier league matches. And original made for TV stuff on the Arts channels such as the shop window performances that ran up to Christmas Eve.
Even on Sky's entertainment channels there are new Stella and Simpson's Christmas Specials and the excellent 'Little Crackers' in one block - which have some hidden gems by various leading UK performers.
Ripped off is a complete over reaction imo.
They're too busy making all that money they then waste on Sky. Which is surprising, given how stupid some people on this forum seem to think Sky customers are. 10 million dumb and lucky homes in the UK - what are the odds?
It just pisses me off...And that's not the only thing I hate, BT took my F!"KING ESPN on my Sky subscription over some stupid channel called BT Sport?!?! (i hope that channel will die in hell) And i've hated sports after that.
If we were younger, able to go out on holiday more etc etc then we might re-evaluate our priorities. But TV is important in our circumstances and we have judged Sky worth paying for - though not at any price. We know the limit above which we would not go with price rises etc.
I think people have more sense than some anti Sky zealots really give them credit for.
And - also - some of those who fought hard to ensure Sky do not get everything and it must be spread to other channels because Sky are evil/greedy etc etc have - in reality - just created new pay TV behemoths. As THIS is the future. Not FTA TV.
And these now share the pay stuff between them at ever increasing multiple subs.
So this sort of Sky hatred has created a world where TV now costs much more to access than in the age when Sky was the only player alongside the terrestrials.
Not to mention that Sky invested in new things like HD and 3 D and drove these ahead of the terrestrials in a way that could never have occurred without Sky's pay structure.
The FTA channels gain benefits from this progress forged by Sky investment.
That is really, really bad.
Why they even consider showing the Queens Speech?
Generally, the further up the pay / social scale you go, the less TV do the people watch. Not just less Sky, but fewer hours, overall.
TV has become the way of filling your time if you haven't got anything better such as socialising, going out or any hobbies and you don't like reading.
Sky is not worth it, at all.
10 million plus subscribers would appear to be of a contrary viewpoint
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it
For the record
I do not think going to a premiership football match is worth it
or Cinema
or Theatre
or drinking in a pub
or using an i-phone
or going to an expensive restaurant
or going abroad on holiday
or smoking
or taking happy drugs
or buying a CD or DVD
or buying coffee in a coffee shop
As we are told many times by people who do not think Sky is worth it, I thought I would add a just few of my own.
Excellent point.
I tend to agree, most Sky subscribers I know are people who aren't wealthy at all. Some of them are the sort of people who will pay £80 for every Sky channel, then moan on Facebook or DS about the £12 TV licence, "cos the BBC is a haven for paedos innit"...
There's a word for people with such ignorance like this, but I'll leave that to your imaginations!
scum i think is the word.
Can rely on you to call a spade a spade, my good man
No I had absolutely no idea about this whatsoever. I will of course stop it immediately and give all my money to those nice people at Sky TV.
(Who says that sarcasm is dead?)