I don't know why some people dislike Sky so much perhaps it is down to the inability to pay for the service for whatever reason.
In fact some posters seem to envy and resent other posters who have Sky.
I think if it hadn't been for the courage of Rupert Murdoch and the other investors who took a huge gamble to revolutionise television I think we would still have three or four channels. I think Sky deserve their success with is now starting to pay off despite the begrudgers.
This 'cannot afford' malarky, maybe not full package I agree, but the base product, with Free HD and a working PVR at about a £1 a day, that's about 3 ****, half a pint of beer, or 1 tin of Pepsi !
This 'cannot afford' malarky, maybe not full package I agree, but the base product, with Free HD and a working PVR at about a £1 a day, that's about 3 ****, half a pint of beer, or 1 tin of Pepsi !
I agree to most people Sky is very affordable and in my opinion you do get a lot of good stuff for the money.
I don't know why some people dislike Sky so much perhaps it is down to the inability to pay for the service for whatever reason.
In fact some posters seem to envy and resent other posters who have Sky.
I think if it hadn't been for the courage of Rupert Murdoch and the other investors who took a huge gamble to revolutionise television I think we would still have three or four channels. I think Sky deserve their success with is now starting to pay off despite the begrudgers.
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.
Sky deserve their success. They invested so much in Britain- it is paying dividends.
I think some posters have a wee case of jealousy and paranoia. It is a shame.
As the majority of BSkyB is owned by UK institutional investors, you'll have to hate yourself a little bit too!!
That might be so but we all really know who runs the show & who's baby it is.
The government of the time when Sky started could of stopped it starting but did not in fear of Murdoch.
I don't know why some people dislike Sky so much perhaps it is down to the inability to pay for the service for whatever reason.
In fact some posters seem to envy and resent other posters who have Sky.
I think if it hadn't been for the courage of Rupert Murdoch and the other investors who took a huge gamble to revolutionise television I think we would still have three or four channels. I think Sky deserve their success with is now starting to pay off despite the begrudgers.
Theres always been Sky bashers on the forums and it's no good arguing with them as i've already found out on other threads. I'm not very well off and don't have much money, but i do without other things and i manage my money carefully so i can afford Sky.
Ian.
That might be so but we all really know who runs the show & who's baby it is.
The government of the time when Sky started could of stopped it starting but did not in fear of Murdoch.
Lol when will people ever listen , as far as I know Rupert Murdoch only owns 38% of Sky and in the grand scheme of things that is not really a big share. I think if Rupert Murdoch sold all his shares in Sky and cut all ties with the company it would still not please everyone.
Theres always been Sky bashers on the forums and it's no good arguing with them as i've already found out on other threads. I'm not very well off and don't have much money, but i do without other things and i manage my money carefully so i can afford Sky.
Ian.
Haha yeh I agree but it is a debating forum and debating is such good fun.
That might be so but we all really know who runs the show & who's baby it is.
The government of the time when Sky started could of stopped it starting but did not in fear of Murdoch.
At least its profits are propping up all our insurance, ISAs and pensions etc.
Glad they didn't!!
Not forgetting it's one of the UK's largest employers and sub contracts to dozens of other British companies who employ thousands.
So, using "Glee" as an argument, C4 secures the rights to the show and at the end of the initial 2 year contract the producers of the show ask for a significant per-episode increase due to the show's worldwide popularity and success in other areas - live arena shows, music, merchandising e.t.c..
C4 baulk at the asking price, Sky agree to pay it.
What part of that is anti-competitive ? And do you really think the show's producers would abide by any ruling from the competition commission to sell the rights to the terrestrial broadcaster at a lower price ?
No, of course they wouldn't. They'd likely just refuse to sell the show to any network in the UK if the government started interfering.
I know there's this absurd notion that Sky have this secret 'war room' where they move chess pieces around with a big stick and say things like "Ok, we'll allow Channel 4 to buy Glee and we'll allow Channel 5 to buy House and then we'll swoop in with our secret show-buying ninjas to grab them!".
Broadcast television isn't a charity. Channel 4 proved with Desperate Housewives that they can retain the rights to a show if they want to. I know i'll be accused (once again) of being a "Sky Fanboy" but I'm really not. This whole notion of Sky "allowing" terrestrial broadcasters to buy the rights to shows and "make them popular" really is so utterly, utterly absurd it just winds me right up
Excellent comment. I've never really understood this anti-competitive argument in the context of buying rights to TV shows. Incidentally, in the case of LOST, it is an urban myth that Sky outbid Channel 4 for it anyway, since C4 had a lifetime option and first refusal rights on the show from the outset. When it came up for renegotiation they baulked at Disney's new asking price and relinquished their option, telling Disney to put the show onto the open market. Two bids were put in at this stage - one of which was from Sky - but no terrestrial broadcaster showed any interest, so in effect, the show was always destined to disappear from UK terrestrial TV at that point. Sky did get into a minor bidding war with the other broadcaster but eventually prevailed, and it is this which has probably led to the popular myth that it was C4 that they outbid.
What annoys me about Sky is that quite often they not only buy the pay TV rights for a show, but also the FTA rights and never use them. just so the other broadcasters can't show them
They are not the only TV company to do that though. Virgin Media and On Digital were also known to buy up FTA rights on some of their programme acquisitions. In fact, for years even ITV bought up the Pay TV rights to the new Bond films - and the library rights to the older ones - just to keep them off Sky. They can't afford to do that now, of course.
That might be so but we all really know who runs the show & who's baby it is.
The government of the time when Sky started could of stopped it starting but did not in fear of Murdoch.
Sssssh Sssh. This post is gibberish. Calm down. Sleep.
Then do some googling
But you love Sky Joshua?! Or at least your other posts would lead us to believe that. If you hate them so much, why do you always constantly buy their latest offering?
I don't hate Sky....they are a business out to make money. They haven't "stolen" anything from FTA TV, they've outbid their rivals, good business. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it....there's things I would like but I can't afford, that's life.
Like I said, as Virgin do not have as much channels as Sky and Real Digital has not even started to broadcast properly yet, Sky is the only choice I have,
I do not see Virgin adding a shed load of channels on their platform like all the CBS channels, Pick TV+, Quest+ and the other + channels and Argos TV anytime soon, do you, really?
I am a Cable man myself because of the Fast Internet Download speeds that Sky cannot do currently nor in the future unless they use BT's equipment
and infrastructure as BT have already got it set up in Suffolk where there is currently a trial on for 1GB download speeds
In England, there is currently no company that can do both gives you lots and many channels and gives you high download speeds, so you have to use both Sky and Virgin to get this
no i don't like sky i wonder why you think people with pensions should like sky they used pension money to get going so of couse they should pay out now with big dividands
I don't hate SKY, a lot of Sports the FTA channels aren't interested in, also at least i get ball by ball coverage of Cricket Test Matches, it was infuriating when BBC/C4 regally broke from Cricket coverage to show Horse Racing ecc, plus FTA channels never showed ball by ball coverage of England Tours just highlights. Plus SKY show US shows within a couple of weeks after they air in the US, not months later like some FTA channels do.
Although having said that, i do hate SKY having FTA rights, & not allowing them to be shown on FTA, like the recent England away qualifier unless FTA network pays an exorbitant amount of money.
They have a fantastic sports product but I do feel annoyed at having to buy the basic package to access the sports content when I never watch Sky1, Sky Living etc. It is like going into a supermarket and being told you can only buy a nice bottle of wine when you have bought a pound of grapes, a tub of ice cream and 20 Superkings. Sky will argue that the pricing structure keeps the smaller channels viable but if they cant stand on their own two feet then let them go to the wall. There are far too many channels on Sky anyway.
I would love to be able to just get Sky Sports 1-4 and the Eurosport channels in HD. But then I suspect many others would too and that would severely make a dent in the revenue per customer.
I am a strong supporter of the sporting crown jewels and find it a shame that a cultural divide has occured between the haves and have-nots for major football qualifiers, Ryder Cup etc. You dont get those water cooler moments when events have been on Sky.
On the positive side Sky+ is great, Sky's role in rolling out HD has to be commended and Sky News is more watchable than BBC (athough does lose a lot of money).
I dont hate Sky but then I have no love for them either.
Without Sky, sport in this country (and I'm not just talking football, although obviously it's the prime example) would be very very different.
I don't follow sport but have the major sports won more international trophies like the World Cup since obscene amounts of money went to sport from TV mainly thanks to Sky? As an outsider I don't see any evidence that standards have improved just that sportsmen have more to spend on houses, cars and white powder.
The constantly steal (out bid) great TV shows (Prison Break and LOST) so that others who can't afford SKY lose out, or then others illegally downlaod or torrent the show anyway!
All their shows on movies are soo repetative! I mean come on it has been like this since I was a teenager!
Anyone agree? :cool:
I am perfectly content for Sky to be prosperous and profitable and to offer additional films, sports, HD and 3D channels to their many customers and to buy in new series like Treme, Boardwalk Empire, etc. for their viewers.
What I cannot stand is their monopolistic, parasitic and anticompetitive behaviour, e.g. trying to hoover up as many HD channels as possible to stem the growth of rival Freesat, using their purchasing power to put popular series behind a Sky paywall after other channels took the initial risk (House, Lost, Prison Break, Mad Men being examples) and their domination of the UK's most popular sports such as football, rugby and cricket.
What is need is much firmer regulation directed at Sky and more sports tournaments to be put on the listed sports events schedule to stop this monopolistic greed in its tracks.
What I cannot stand is their monopolistic, parasitic and anticompetitive behaviour, e.g. trying to hoover up as many HD channels as possible to stem the growth of rival Freesat, using their purchasing power to put popular series behind a Sky paywall after other channels took the initial risk (House, Lost, Prison Break, Mad Men being examples) and their domination of the UK's most popular sports such as football, rugby and cricket.
What is need is much firmer regulation directed at Sky and more sports tournaments to be put on the listed sports events schedule to stop this monopolistic greed in its tracks.
Whaaaaaaaa? I can't be bothered commenting how wrong you are. You love going around in circles.
[I don't think that offering what people want to watch is greed I think it is good business sense and if a company can afford to offer great entertainment I am all for that and I think 10 million plus subscribers tend to share my view.
I had sky for about three years......since then I've had to 'downgrade' to Freeview.
To cut a long story short - the channels I watched on SKY - I still get on Freeview (apart from about three channels, which I don't miss TBH).
I don't like SKY when they 'grab' popular programmes from (what was known as)Terrestrial channels out of sheer greed.
They are still NOT the most watched thing anyway!
I look at TV-listings for Sky 1 (which is supposedly their best channel and I think MEH!!)
I don't give a toss about their sports channels - and if I want a movie - I'd rather buy a DVD!
Sky provides a service. It is a good at it. Your always critical of it. Your criticism are boring. It is nonsense. There are some posters on here sharing your sentiments resorting to lies...
Comments
This 'cannot afford' malarky, maybe not full package I agree, but the base product, with Free HD and a working PVR at about a £1 a day, that's about 3 ****, half a pint of beer, or 1 tin of Pepsi !
I agree to most people Sky is very affordable and in my opinion you do get a lot of good stuff for the money.
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.
Sky deserve their success. They invested so much in Britain- it is paying dividends.
I think some posters have a wee case of jealousy and paranoia. It is a shame.
Sky is really great.
That might be so but we all really know who runs the show & who's baby it is.
The government of the time when Sky started could of stopped it starting but did not in fear of Murdoch.
Ian.
Lol when will people ever listen , as far as I know Rupert Murdoch only owns 38% of Sky and in the grand scheme of things that is not really a big share. I think if Rupert Murdoch sold all his shares in Sky and cut all ties with the company it would still not please everyone.
Haha yeh I agree but it is a debating forum and debating is such good fun.
At least its profits are propping up all our insurance, ISAs and pensions etc.
Glad they didn't!!
Not forgetting it's one of the UK's largest employers and sub contracts to dozens of other British companies who employ thousands.
Excellent comment. I've never really understood this anti-competitive argument in the context of buying rights to TV shows.
They are not the only TV company to do that though. Virgin Media and On Digital were also known to buy up FTA rights on some of their programme acquisitions. In fact, for years even ITV bought up the Pay TV rights to the new Bond films - and the library rights to the older ones - just to keep them off Sky. They can't afford to do that now, of course.
Sssssh Sssh. This post is gibberish. Calm down. Sleep.
Then do some googling
Like I said, as Virgin do not have as much channels as Sky and Real Digital has not even started to broadcast properly yet, Sky is the only choice I have,
I do not see Virgin adding a shed load of channels on their platform like all the CBS channels, Pick TV+, Quest+ and the other + channels and Argos TV anytime soon, do you, really?
I am a Cable man myself because of the Fast Internet Download speeds that Sky cannot do currently nor in the future unless they use BT's equipment
and infrastructure as BT have already got it set up in Suffolk where there is currently a trial on for 1GB download speeds
In England, there is currently no company that can do both gives you lots and many channels and gives you high download speeds, so you have to use both Sky and Virgin to get this
Just a shame they use tax havens but they are by no means the only ones.
Although having said that, i do hate SKY having FTA rights, & not allowing them to be shown on FTA, like the recent England away qualifier unless FTA network pays an exorbitant amount of money.
They have a fantastic sports product but I do feel annoyed at having to buy the basic package to access the sports content when I never watch Sky1, Sky Living etc. It is like going into a supermarket and being told you can only buy a nice bottle of wine when you have bought a pound of grapes, a tub of ice cream and 20 Superkings. Sky will argue that the pricing structure keeps the smaller channels viable but if they cant stand on their own two feet then let them go to the wall. There are far too many channels on Sky anyway.
I would love to be able to just get Sky Sports 1-4 and the Eurosport channels in HD. But then I suspect many others would too and that would severely make a dent in the revenue per customer.
I am a strong supporter of the sporting crown jewels and find it a shame that a cultural divide has occured between the haves and have-nots for major football qualifiers, Ryder Cup etc. You dont get those water cooler moments when events have been on Sky.
On the positive side Sky+ is great, Sky's role in rolling out HD has to be commended and Sky News is more watchable than BBC (athough does lose a lot of money).
I dont hate Sky but then I have no love for them either.
I don't follow sport but have the major sports won more international trophies like the World Cup since obscene amounts of money went to sport from TV mainly thanks to Sky? As an outsider I don't see any evidence that standards have improved just that sportsmen have more to spend on houses, cars and white powder.
I am perfectly content for Sky to be prosperous and profitable and to offer additional films, sports, HD and 3D channels to their many customers and to buy in new series like Treme, Boardwalk Empire, etc. for their viewers.
What I cannot stand is their monopolistic, parasitic and anticompetitive behaviour, e.g. trying to hoover up as many HD channels as possible to stem the growth of rival Freesat, using their purchasing power to put popular series behind a Sky paywall after other channels took the initial risk (House, Lost, Prison Break, Mad Men being examples) and their domination of the UK's most popular sports such as football, rugby and cricket.
What is need is much firmer regulation directed at Sky and more sports tournaments to be put on the listed sports events schedule to stop this monopolistic greed in its tracks.
Whaaaaaaaa? I can't be bothered commenting how wrong you are. You love going around in circles.
I tell it like it is, babycakes:
http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/1047052/Ofcom-investigates-Virgin-BT-complaints-Sky-Sports/
http://www.cpbf.org.uk/body.php?id=1670&selpanel=1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bt-locks-horns-with-sky-over-pricing-for-sports-2016402.html
etc...
To cut a long story short - the channels I watched on SKY - I still get on Freeview (apart from about three channels, which I don't miss TBH).
I don't like SKY when they 'grab' popular programmes from (what was known as)Terrestrial channels out of sheer greed.
They are still NOT the most watched thing anyway!
I look at TV-listings for Sky 1 (which is supposedly their best channel and I think MEH!!)
I don't give a toss about their sports channels - and if I want a movie - I'd rather buy a DVD!
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
No you don't tell like it is.
Sky provides a service. It is a good at it. Your always critical of it. Your criticism are boring. It is nonsense. There are some posters on here sharing your sentiments resorting to lies...
You need a hobby or something?