Has subscription TV and its viewers lost the plot?

FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
Forum Member
I was listening to the radio coming home from work the other night with the presenter talking about the cost of the new TV Sky/BT sports deal. I nearly swerved off the road when the presenter mentioned that someone taking the full service under the new deal will be paying just shy of £900 per year. I think that may have included broadband.

I thought blimey I think my unlimited BB costs me around £145 per year plus we are struggling to watch all the programmes we are recording and they are free.

I know it's up to people how they choose to spend their money but can't help thinking the worlds gone mad.
«1345

Comments

  • bampsambampsam Posts: 1,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I used to be with Sky,but as my viewing habits were basically free to air I moved to a retail YouView box and TalkTalk for broadband and phone. I find this to be perfect for my needs without missing Sky. Total cost now,£18:45/month. I'm convinced that once Sky up their prices to pay for the 70% increase they are paying for the football rights,a lot more people will be leaving.
  • FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
    Forum Member
    bampsam wrote: »
    I used to be with Sky,but as my viewing habits were basically free to air I moved to a retail YouView box and TalkTalk for broadband and phone. I find this to be perfect for my needs without missing Sky. Total cost now,£18:45/month. I'm convinced that once Sky up their prices to pay for the 70% increase they are paying for the football rights,a lot more people will be leaving.

    We used to be the same, had Sky but the majority of what we were watching was terrestrial. Ditching Sky was one of the wisest financial decisions I had taken in years and like you didn't miss it one little bit.

    Although a totally different discussion I consider Sky Sports and their ilk have ruined the English game (football).
  • RestorerRestorer Posts: 2,092
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Faust wrote: »
    I know it's up to people how they choose to spend their money but can't help thinking the worlds gone mad.

    Seriously? You think people spending £17 a week on their home entertainment are mad?

    I think you need to check what else £17 buys in 2015 :o. Even for people on low incomes this is not an awful lot of money - wouldn't even be enough to go out and get drunk on :D.
  • FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
    Forum Member
    Restorer wrote: »
    Seriously? You think people spending £17 a week on their home entertainment are mad?

    I think you need to check what else £17 buys in 2015 :o. Even for people on low incomes this is not an awful lot of money - wouldn't even be enough to go out and get drunk on :D.

    It's certainly money I am not spending on home entertainment nor I suspect many others. My home entertainment costs are nil (apart from the TV licence etc.) and we struggle to watch all our recordings.

    I suspect those struggling to put food on the table might have a different view about finances Mr Cameron, sorry Restorer :o.
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Restorer wrote: »
    Seriously? You think people spending £17 a week on their home entertainment are mad?

    I think you need to check what else £17 buys in 2015 :o. Even for people on low incomes this is not an awful lot of money - wouldn't even be enough to go out and get drunk on :D.

    Exactly looking at it another way, it could be said that people who pay nearly twice £17 to see a Premiership football match is mad and even madder are those who on top of this, regularly travel to away matches.

    £17 =
    two seats in a cinema
    one night for couple of people down the pub
    a decent seat in a theatre
    gym membership,
    smoking cigarettes
    a meal for two in a pub or unpretentious restaurant

    and many more things
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,274
    Forum Member
    Caxton wrote: »
    £17 =
    one night for couple of people down the pub

    When did you last go out :D

    Not that I would (or ever have) but it's pretty common for young people going out to blow a couple of hundred quid (no idea how or where though).
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Restorer wrote: »
    Seriously? You think people spending £17 a week on their home entertainment are mad?

    I think you need to check what else £17 buys in 2015 :o. Even for people on low incomes this is not an awful lot of money - wouldn't even be enough to go out and get drunk on :D.

    Good point you might spend that easy going to see a film at the cinema depending on which night/day and whether you pay extra to see the 3D version! Transport on top if you ether use public transport or you car(fuel) ect it all adds up!
  • FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
    Forum Member
    Justying how much something costs by equating it to something else is the oldest trick in the book used by companies, salesman and politicians alike.

    However you add up the figures it will still come to £900 a year. What's that old saying again about a fool and his money? :p
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Faust wrote: »
    Justying how much something costs by equating it to something else is the oldest trick in the book used by companies, salesman and politicians alike.

    However you add up the figures it will still come to £900 a year. What's that old saying again about a fool and his money? :p

    If you are adding it all up an average phone(ll)+bb bill £360-400 per year
    Average mobile £400-500 per year
    Average electric bill £800-1000 per year (could be different based on property size and whether you have gass or not)
    Not sure about other things off the top of my head but you can compare anything at a yearly rate too!
    Car tax, home insurance, other insurances, rent/mortgage, waterbills/rates, the list could go on.
    But going back to home entertainment everyone needs some leisure and quite a lot of it cost.
  • muppetman11muppetman11 Posts: 2,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Faust wrote: »
    I was listening to the radio coming home from work the other night with the presenter talking about the cost of the new TV Sky/BT sports deal. I nearly swerved off the road when the presenter mentioned that someone taking the full service under the new deal will be paying just shy of £900 per year. I think that may have included broadband.

    I thought blimey I think my unlimited BB costs me around £145 per year plus we are struggling to watch all the programmes we are recording and they are free.

    I know it's up to people how they choose to spend their money but can't help thinking the worlds gone mad.
    Glad your happy , can't say I worry too much how people choose to spend their money pay TV is a choice no one is forced to take it.
  • FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
    Forum Member
    lotrjw wrote: »
    If you are adding it all up an average phone(ll)+bb bill £360-400 per year
    Average mobile £400-500 per year
    Average electric bill £800-1000 per year (could be different based on property size and whether you have gass or not)
    Not sure about other things off the top of my head but you can compare anything at a yearly rate too!
    Car tax, home insurance, other insurances, rent/mortgage, waterbills/rates, the list could go on.
    But going back to home entertainment everyone needs some leisure and quite a lot of it cost.

    You make my point admirably, you have definitely bought into the concept.

    Freeview Freesat has more than enough entertainment for even the most challenging viewer and by and large it's free.

    On the phone in programme the other night not one single caller defended the the spiralling costs of subscription TV.
  • FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
    Forum Member
    Glad your happy , can't say I worry too much how people choose to spend their money pay TV is a choice no one is forced to take it.

    It's simply a subject for debate, that's what tends to happen on forums. :blush:
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Faust wrote: »
    You make my point admirably, you have definitely bought into the concept.

    Freeview Freesat has more than enough entertainment for even the most challenging viewer and by and large it's free.

    On the phone in programme the other night not one single caller defended the the spiralling costs of subscription TV.

    I'm happy to pay a perpetual discounted (due to the old Entertainment Extra discount after they stopped the individual packs a few years ago) Family pack though, that is currently £360 per annum. Which is less than I pay for phone and broadband together (about £500 per year including FTTC).
    I agree tho £900 would be too much for the pay TV part only unless its including phone and broadband (FTTC) with the pay tv costs, then £900 together isn't much more than I pay for all 3!
    It would be good if you could get a good deal that allows a good mobile, basic HD pay channels, FTTC broadband and anytime calls to international destinations for say £70-80 per month £840-960 per annum altogether from one company!
  • ShaunIOWShaunIOW Posts: 11,300
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    |I'm currently paying £47 per month for unlimited BB, line rental, 24/7 UK calls, Mobile phone (600 mins, unlimited texts, 1Gb data), newsgroup access and web space/email accounts plus £28.50 pm for Sky TV giving all the entertainment channels, all the Sports channels and HD but will likely drop Sky TV when the offer is over unless they better it.
  • fackingspidersfackingspiders Posts: 309
    Forum Member
    My last Sky bill was £115 (Sports, Movies, HD, Multi screen, unlimited fibre BB) and I pay for my mobile, the wife's and my eldest daughter's phones which total almost £100 a month on top. What gets my goat though is paying for the line rental when I don't even have the phone plugged in unless I need to call someone and it's cheaper than using a mobile. But that's life.
  • simon194simon194 Posts: 1,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Faust wrote: »
    Freeview Freesat has more than enough entertainment for even the most challenging viewer and by and large it's free.

    Apart from the early evening news when I'm cooking my evening meal I find it very difficult to find anything on terrestrial worth watching so I must be a far more challenging viewer. :):)
  • FIFA1966FIFA1966 Posts: 1,101
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Faust wrote: »
    I was listening to the radio coming home from work the other night with the presenter talking about the cost of the new TV Sky/BT sports deal. I nearly swerved off the road when the presenter mentioned that someone taking the full service under the new deal will be paying just shy of £900 per year. I think that may have included broadband.

    I thought blimey I think my unlimited BB costs me around £145 per year plus we are struggling to watch all the programmes we are recording and they are free.

    I know it's up to people how they choose to spend their money but can't help thinking the worlds gone mad.



    If they take the Sports Pack + HD + Family Pack, the monthly payment will be £62.75, which is what I'm paying and it does not include anything else.
  • UnrealUnreal Posts: 326
    Forum Member
    I used to pay Sky fortunes but now I pay (excluding the mandatory TV Licence Fee):

    £7.50 for unltd landline calls, broadband, and line rental from Sky (a lucky combo of retention deals, in honesty).

    £0 for TV - Freesat HD+

    My Freesat box is continually full because there's so much good stuff to record. I don't miss Sky at all, with the exception of live football, but that isn't worth the cost to get it back.
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    Faust wrote: »
    We used to be the same, had Sky but the majority of what we were watching was terrestrial. Ditching Sky was one of the wisest financial decisions I had taken in years and like you didn't miss it one little bit.
    A wiser approach would have been to look at the product in more detail, to find out if it caters for your needs before entering in to a 12 month contract. ;-)

    Faust wrote: »
    Freeview Freesat has more than enough entertainment for even the most challenging viewer and by and large it's free.

    Only in your opinion.

    FTA/FTV does not in any way cater for my needs, therefore I choose to pay for the additional content I'm interested in. I've not gone mad, I just have a different taste in entertainment than yourself.

    There will be those who don't even have a TV, they will probably look at you with the view you have gone mad spending what they feel is an extravagent amount of money on a TV, TV license and PVR.

    Have you the same view if someone has a more expensive car than yourself, or any luxury item for that matter?
  • muppetman11muppetman11 Posts: 2,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Deacon1972 wrote: »
    A wiser approach would have been to look at the product in more detail, to find out if it caters for your needs before entering in to a 12 month contract. ;-)




    Only in your opinion.

    FTA/FTV does not in any way cater for my needs, therefore I choose to pay for the additional content I'm interested in. I've not gone mad, I just have a different taste in entertainment than yourself.

    There will be those who don't even have a TV, they will probably look at you with the view you have gone mad spending what they feel is an extravagent amount of money on a TV, TV license and PVR.

    Have you the same view if someone has a more expensive car than yourself, or any luxury item for that matter?
    Or IPhone ;-)
  • Jimmy_BarnesJimmy_Barnes Posts: 895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Subscription TV may not be a dead duck, but it is certainly on the critical list.

    With streaming services and pay as you go entertainment on the rise, yet an inevitable price hike on the way from Sky after spunking BILLIONS on Premier League football, more and more people are going to leave Sky in droves, because they simply can't afford to keep their prices low with such extravagent outgoings.

    There are other options for top flight football (which hasn't got anywhere near the viewership to justify the outrageous sums spent on it). There are certainly other options for entertainment and movies, all at a lower price than a Sky TV sub. Sky better wise up in the next couple of years, otherwise they are going to price themselves right out of people's homes.
  • FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
    Forum Member
    simon194 wrote: »
    Apart from the early evening news when I'm cooking my evening meal I find it very difficult to find anything on terrestrial worth watching so I must be a far more challenging viewer. :):)

    So as an example the BBC is currently screening Wolf Hall, critically acclaimed as some of the best TV for years, BBC Four, a plethora of top documentaries week in week out and you claim to be a far more challenging viewer. :blush:
  • THOMOTHOMO Posts: 7,446
    Forum Member
    Subscription TV may not be a dead duck, but it is certainly on the critical list.

    With streaming services and pay as you go entertainment on the rise, yet an inevitable price hike on the way from Sky after spunking BILLIONS on Premier League football, more and more people are going to leave Sky in droves, because they simply can't afford to keep their prices low with such extravagent outgoings.

    There are other options for top flight football (which hasn't got anywhere near the viewership to justify the outrageous sums spent on it). There are certainly other options for entertainment and movies, all at a lower price than a Sky TV sub. Sky better wise up in the next couple of years, otherwise they are going to price themselves right out of people's homes.
    Fortunately myself and all my friends will continue getting Sky whatever, so subscription TV is not a dead duck as far as myself or my friends and relatives are concerned. Despite people leaving Sky every year, Sky get more new subscribers every year than leave. It has been said on numerous occasions over the years that subscription TV is dead, but that has never happened and it has been more successful than ever.
    Ian.
  • FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
    Forum Member
    Deacon1972 wrote: »
    A wiser approach would have been to look at the product in more detail, to find out if it caters for your needs before entering in to a 12 month contract. ;-)




    Only in your opinion.

    FTA/FTV does not in any way cater for my needs, therefore I choose to pay for the additional content I'm interested in. I've not gone mad, I just have a different taste in entertainment than yourself.

    There will be those who don't even have a TV, they will probably look at you with the view you have gone mad spending what they feel is an extravagent amount of money on a TV, TV license and PVR.

    Have you the same view if someone has a more expensive car than yourself, or any luxury item for that matter?

    We had Sky for around a decade but found it was fast becoming an irrelevance, there was little original programming with the schedules littered with repeats, imports, Romcoms etc.

    Sky Movies was and is an embarrassment. We ditched that dross within the first twelve months.

    We found it becoming like a digital version of The Sun.
  • FaustFaust Posts: 8,985
    Forum Member
    THOMO wrote: »
    Fortunately myself and all my friends will continue getting Sky whatever, so subscription TV is not a dead duck as far as myself or my friends and relatives are concerned. Despite people leaving Sky every year, Sky get more new subscribers every year than leave. It has been said on numerous occasions over the years that subscription TV is dead, but that has never happened and it has been more successful than ever.
    Ian.

    So long as you realise each month when you look at your wage packet and compare it to the wage packet of a premiership footballer just who it is that's bankrolling them. :D

    Tell me how does that feel?
Sign In or Register to comment.