The average wage is £24,000 there or thereabouts. A decent Sky package is about £25 a month. So no, for the majority of people Sky is more than affordable and nonsense to call it a "toy for the rich".
If you want sports it's another £20 a month. If you go to a Premier League game, test match, rugby game etc etc, you're looking at £30+ a ticket. Seems Sky is more than reasonable set against that.
But then there's always folk who want something for nothing. Afraid those days are gone in TV land. In fact they went about 20 years ago but people still struggle to get their head around this.
Are Virgin lobbying the government to expand the network?
Be good if they are.
Sadly the government would have to put some form of law into force, so that more people get cable. I know that sounds stupid, but even though I live in a busy city centre with loads of people in street nearby having cable, I am not able to have it, as the company who owns the rights to all of the flats, which are leased to private landlords & housing associations as they are refusing any additional cabling work done in the the area & to the flats.
Which imho is really ridiculous as not only is there a C&W office right across the road (my LLU broadband is on the C&W exchange), but also despite their being 2 satellite feeds on the wall of my flat, only 1 of them is wired up for a proper signal, which means that full usage of Sky+ is out of the question & the owner of the properties is refusing to have the problem fixed, as they don't want any alterations made to the outside of the properties. All of the flats are not listed buildings as they are only about 5 years old.
Getting back to topic, Sky can be expensive but if I am to watch a Football match or other programs legally, then Sky is the only way I can do it as I hate BT with a passion & the price of Sky Sports alone on TUTV is about the same cost of a Sky Subscription. The only illegal streams I use now are those of games that Sky Sports or ESPN do not have the rights to show.
IIRC the average Sky customer currently spends about £770 a year on it now, which is £65 a month, far more than the £25 (which won't get you Sports, as Sports alone is £21, and needs a basic packages before it'll let you have that, so that's another £20 a month for entertainment, taking you to £40ish).
It is reaching the point that PAY TV is getting to be pretty expensive if you want the sports and movies (especially in HD), but that is offset a bit by the chance of free/cheaper internet connections.
IIRC the average Sky customer currently spends about £770 a year on it now ....
Per results for the period ending 30/9/12 ARPU (average revenue per user) is lower than you suggest, at £550, and this includes revenue derived from the non pay-tv services that Sky provide, such as telephone/broadband.
I think that this reflects the fact that the Sky customer base is much broader than previous and that customers are very selective about which premium products/services they take.
In fact, Sky has a growing base of standalone home communications (telephone/broadband) customers, who don't take their pay-tv products/services.
That doesn't detract from your point, however, that "PAY TV is getting to be pretty expensive if you want the sports and movies (especially in HD)".
Are Virgin lobbying the government to expand the network?
Be good if they are.
Not sure if it is a Government restriction, we asked Virgin, and thay had absolutley no interest in bringing cable to our location, as there was no return for the investment, luckily Sky did not take that view in the 80's !
Yes, I Do, But I know people on benifits with better services than I get.
Of course, there are examples of unfairness in the benefits system, but politicians etc. have been using a lazy stereotype of a Sky subscriber since the days when Sky were a pay-tv provider only with a much narrower customer base.
However, I believe this stereotype is in the process of being usurped by the latest lazy "soundbite"- that Britain's hard-working families are getting upset early in the morning when they peer at their neighbours' houses on their way to work and find that their curtains (or blinds when the stereotype requires an update!) are still closed.
A newspaper report earlier in the week attributed the crashing of the Freesat website to people on SKY seeing it and realising that they could get most of the services they wanted for nothing on Freesat.
A newspaper report earlier in the week attributed the crashing of the Freesat website to people on SKY seeing it and realising that they could get most of the services they wanted for nothing on Freesat.
Per results for the period ending 30/9/12 ARPU (average revenue per user) is lower than you suggest, at £550, and this includes revenue derived from the non pay-tv services that Sky provide, such as telephone/broadband.
I think that this reflects the fact that the Sky customer base is much broader than previous and that customers are very selective about which premium products/services they take.
In fact, Sky has a growing base of standalone home communications (telephone/broadband) customers, who don't take their pay-tv products/services.
That doesn't detract from your point, however, that "PAY TV is getting to be pretty expensive if you want the sports and movies (especially in HD)".
Ah, I could have sworn I saw the figure £770 quoted the other day in one of the papers/on the a business programme.
A newspaper report earlier in the week attributed the crashing of the Freesat website to people on SKY seeing it and realising that they could get most of the services they wanted for nothing on Freesat.
Basic Sky is £26 pm, there is no need to spend upto £60+ and it is a 'luxury' item not a requirement of life, and at the end of the day it's only TV !
Round of drinks down the pub would cost more than £25 !
The very basic package actually costs £21, but for that you get a pretty poor selection of channels IMO, because that only gets you the Entertainment pack, to get the decent channels you need the Entertainment extra package. This costs £26 (more if you have HD), I would need it to get the channels I watch with VM, and I only pay £36.50 for TV and BB. Then there is BB costs and associated phone line costs to pay as well, you can see the point the OP is making. It is quite easily to get the cost up and why some people don't see it as value for money.
Value for money is different from person to person as we all want different things from a service.
Where do you drink? :eek: For a round to cost me that I would have to buy 13 drinks! £2 a pint
After two years living with my son I'll be moving in a couple of weeks so have been looking at the cost of Sky.
Basic entertainment pack is £21.50 (the extra pack only has Eurosport that interests me) and because I want to watch F1 I'd need the HD pack which is £10.25.
That adds up to £38.10 (inc VAT) a month.
£38.10 a month to watch TV doesn't sound bad.
But it comes down to personal preferences especially in the current economic climate. Some people just don't have that spare money and some choose to give up other things.
$ky is becoming unaffordable for a lot of people, especially as packages can go up to £70+
Sky has no duty to be affordable, it's a private company that chooses its own pricing structure. If it is genuinely too expensive for "a lot of people", then presumably they will cancel their subscriptions and Sky's revenue will fall, at which point they will consider price cuts - or not.
The reality is that Sky is *not* unaffordable for many millions of people, and in fact they saw a significant increase in subscribers in the depths of the 2008-9 recession, because staying in and watching TV was seen to be a more affordable entertainment option than going out.
I suspect that what you really mean is that Sky is unaffordable to *you*.
After two years living with my son I'll be moving in a couple of weeks so have been looking at the cost of Sky.
Basic entertainment pack is £21.50 (the extra pack only has Eurosport that interests me) and because I want to watch F1 I'd need the HD pack which is £10.25.
That adds up to £38.10 (inc VAT) a month.
£38.10 a month to watch TV doesn't sound bad.
It's a bit less than that. Basic pack with HD is £31.75 and to get Eurosport (two HD channels now) is £36.75. Both including VAT.
Of course as a new customer, you'll get a free HD PVR worth £250+ inc free install and if you go through Quidco, you'll get a £100 cash back.
I agree that in some people's circumstances they can't afford pay television but in my experience one often finds that those who continually bash Sky at every given opportunity are people who can afford Sky but for whatever reason don't want to subscribe and they seem to begrudge others from the joy that they get from pay TV.
No otherwise people would cancel their subscription, money would go down, but they're not and they very healthy right now, I have Sky and am not 'well off', a lot of people do not have the full packages.
No otherwise people would cancel their subscription, money would go down, but they're not and they very healthy right now, I have Sky and am not 'well off', a lot of people do not have the full packages.
Virgin Media though, there is a rip off.
I don't think so. To get the channels that I have now with Virgin Media I would have to get the Entertainment Extra pack, with the HD pack as well. This would cost me £36.75, I only pay £36.50 for Broadband and TV now. It all depends on what you want.
Comments
If you want sports it's another £20 a month. If you go to a Premier League game, test match, rugby game etc etc, you're looking at £30+ a ticket. Seems Sky is more than reasonable set against that.
But then there's always folk who want something for nothing. Afraid those days are gone in TV land. In fact they went about 20 years ago but people still struggle to get their head around this.
Sadly the government would have to put some form of law into force, so that more people get cable. I know that sounds stupid, but even though I live in a busy city centre with loads of people in street nearby having cable, I am not able to have it, as the company who owns the rights to all of the flats, which are leased to private landlords & housing associations as they are refusing any additional cabling work done in the the area & to the flats.
Which imho is really ridiculous as not only is there a C&W office right across the road (my LLU broadband is on the C&W exchange), but also despite their being 2 satellite feeds on the wall of my flat, only 1 of them is wired up for a proper signal, which means that full usage of Sky+ is out of the question & the owner of the properties is refusing to have the problem fixed, as they don't want any alterations made to the outside of the properties. All of the flats are not listed buildings as they are only about 5 years old.
Getting back to topic, Sky can be expensive but if I am to watch a Football match or other programs legally, then Sky is the only way I can do it as I hate BT with a passion & the price of Sky Sports alone on TUTV is about the same cost of a Sky Subscription. The only illegal streams I use now are those of games that Sky Sports or ESPN do not have the rights to show.
It is reaching the point that PAY TV is getting to be pretty expensive if you want the sports and movies (especially in HD), but that is offset a bit by the chance of free/cheaper internet connections.
I think that this reflects the fact that the Sky customer base is much broader than previous and that customers are very selective about which premium products/services they take.
In fact, Sky has a growing base of standalone home communications (telephone/broadband) customers, who don't take their pay-tv products/services.
That doesn't detract from your point, however, that "PAY TV is getting to be pretty expensive if you want the sports and movies (especially in HD)".
Basic Sky is £26 pm, there is no need to spend upto £60+ and it is a 'luxury' item not a requirement of life, and at the end of the day it's only TV !
Round of drinks down the pub would cost more than £25 !
Not sure if it is a Government restriction, we asked Virgin, and thay had absolutley no interest in bringing cable to our location, as there was no return for the investment, luckily Sky did not take that view in the 80's !
However, I believe this stereotype is in the process of being usurped by the latest lazy "soundbite"- that Britain's hard-working families are getting upset early in the morning when they peer at their neighbours' houses on their way to work and find that their curtains (or blinds when the stereotype requires an update!) are still closed.
http://advanced-television.com/2011/08/24/european-pay-tv-resists-recession/
As for Virgin being cheaper, not for my package it isn't.
What nonsense!! What newspaper?
Ah, I could have sworn I saw the figure £770 quoted the other day in one of the papers/on the a business programme.
They must have been quoting what a full Sky World HD package costs, not what the average subscriber pays.
It was certainly on The Register.
I assumed it was that silly article!! Couldn't find anything else, either.
Value for money is different from person to person as we all want different things from a service.
Where do you drink? :eek: For a round to cost me that I would have to buy 13 drinks! £2 a pint
Basic entertainment pack is £21.50 (the extra pack only has Eurosport that interests me) and because I want to watch F1 I'd need the HD pack which is £10.25.
That adds up to £38.10 (inc VAT) a month.
£38.10 a month to watch TV doesn't sound bad.
But it comes down to personal preferences especially in the current economic climate. Some people just don't have that spare money and some choose to give up other things.
The reality is that Sky is *not* unaffordable for many millions of people, and in fact they saw a significant increase in subscribers in the depths of the 2008-9 recession, because staying in and watching TV was seen to be a more affordable entertainment option than going out.
I suspect that what you really mean is that Sky is unaffordable to *you*.
It's a bit less than that. Basic pack with HD is £31.75 and to get Eurosport (two HD channels now) is £36.75. Both including VAT.
Of course as a new customer, you'll get a free HD PVR worth £250+ inc free install and if you go through Quidco, you'll get a £100 cash back.
I looked all over the Sky price pages and couldn't find anywhere that said plus or including VAT.
So I contacted them and the 'online' assistant said the prices were plus VAT.
They're including. That's why the HD pack is now the odd amount of £10.25.
Virgin Media though, there is a rip off.
With the national roll-out of fibre broadband, surely folks'll be able to watch what they want, when they want, via that route?
Speeds of up to 100Mbps will allow households to stream multiple high definition television programmes, music and games at the same time.