If Sky let people pick and chose channels three quarters of them would go out of business.
Sky's model of packages brings a wide range of channels because the money is shared out from all who subscribe to a package allowing some smaller channels to survive who could never do on their own.
Whether you see this as good or bad is your opinion, but Sky have valid reasons for the way they organise packages.
Virgin do the same, of course. But they are not being attacked in the same way.
Satelitte/cable TV is about providing variety and support for minority channels.
People who want these pay. Those who don't - it seems - do not simply choose not to pay they moan to high heaven on t'internet instead about those who decide they do want to pay to receive these channels.
If Sky let people pick and chose channels three quarters of them would go out of business.
Sky's model of packages brings a wide range of channels because the money is shared out from all who subscribe to a package allowing some smaller channels to survive who could never do on their own.
Whether you see this as good or bad is your opinion, but Sky have valid reasons for the way they organise packages.
Virgin do the same, of course. But they are not being attacked in the same way.
Satelitte/cable TV is about providing variety and support for minority channels.
People who want these pay. Those who don't - it seems - do not simply choose not to pay they moan to high heaven on t'internet instead about those who decide they do want to pay to receive these channels.
OK, I accept to a certain extent that packaging up certain channels in bundles is often neccesary. But I still strongly believe that Sky deliberately limit their customers in other ways. What would be wrong with offering a premium HD option to lower-bundle customers?
OK, I accept to a certain extent that packaging up certain channels in bundles is often neccesary. But I still strongly believe that Sky deliberately limit their customers in other ways. What would be wrong with offering a premium HD option to lower-bundle customers?
They do. It just costs the extra HD sub plus what everyone else pays to get the premium channels in the first place.
Unless you negotiate a discount as many do.
If you could just pay extra to add on all the premium channels in HD that other customers pay a lot more to subsidise then that would be a great deal for you but it would be being paid for by the thousands of other Sky customers getting those channels.
I suspect they would not regard that as Sky doing the right thing by the majority of their customers,
It does seem ridiculous that Sky entertains haggling on its pricing to such a degree. When word gets around it just serves to make long standing customers, who loyally pay increases when they get asked for, feel like idiots. How to alienate your clientele!
I don't think the market is yet working effectively - people just don't realise there is an alternative to their dish now in the form of BT and Talk Talk (they probably already know about Virgin if they live in a Virgin area due to the amount of marketing rubbish that gets letterboxed).
What the wholesaling of Sky Sport by BT & Talk Talk does now is provide people with a real alternative platform for people who just can't do without their fottball (which is why Sky has been desperately trying to hobble BT). We may finally see some real competition in the market.
It does seem ridiculous that Sky entertains haggling on its pricing to such a degree. When word gets around it just serves to make long standing customers, who loyally pay increases when they get asked for, feel like idiots. How to alienate your clientele!
I don't think the market is yet working effectively - people just don't realise there is an alternative to their dish now in the form of BT and Talk Talk (they probably already know about Virgin if they live in a Virgin area due to the amount of marketing rubbish that gets letterboxed).
What the wholesaling of Sky Sport by BT & Talk Talk does now is provide people with a real alternative platform for people who just can't do without their fottball (which is why Sky has been desperately trying to hobble BT). We may finally see some real competition in the market.
You reckon...BT doesn't want competition it wants the rights, they get that then watch their prices increase.
What the wholesaling of Sky Sport by BT & Talk Talk does now is provide people with a real alternative platform for people who just can't do without their fottball (which is why Sky has been desperately trying to hobble BT). We may finally see some real competition in the market.
Sky Sports (all channels, not just 1&2) has been available on TalkTalk's YouView for a couple of years now and I understand the take up has been very low.
Sky Sports (all channels, not just 1&2) has been available on TalkTalk's YouView for a couple of years now and I understand the take up has been very low.
But the takeup of FTTC has also been low (hence HMGs latest TV adverts) and the rollout is continuing at present.
I really don't think people yet realise that superfast broadband with multicast makes reliable TV possible, and that getting all services over the phone line will work out cheaper than getting a separate satellite receiver and broadband connection.
Plus Talk Talk have hardly been high profile and had a bad name in the past.
Sky Sports (all channels, not just 1&2) has been available on TalkTalk's YouView for a couple of years now and I understand the take up has been very low.
Last I checked TalkTalk's sports package was £30, more expensive than Sky's but without any conditions on what entertainment package you have to be on. So theoretically they could work out cheaper in the long run. Probably not financially viable for TT to reduce the price permanently, as unlike BT, they want to make a profit from sports.
TalkTalk TV have been pretty quiet of late, they need to start pushing their offerings more in my opinion. My brother is with TT and all his related emails go to my account. By the looks of it, they offer more deals to their existing customers than potential ones!
BT on the other hand, are in the best position of all to challenge Sky, and I believe they will do if they win more football rights next year.
But the takeup of FTTC has also been low (hence HMGs latest TV adverts) and the rollout is continuing at present.
I really don't think people yet realise that superfast broadband with multicast makes reliable TV possible, and that getting all services over the phone line will work out cheaper than getting a separate satellite receiver and broadband connection.
Plus Talk Talk have hardly been high profile and had a bad name in the past.
Exactly. When I first considered multicast TV, I had no idea how reliable it would be, and wondered if the IPTV channels would buffer. They never do, the service is smooth like cable TV, and once fibre is rolled out further, more people will discover what you and I have, that this is the future of television, and Sky and their dishes are starting to look rather obsolete.
Last I checked TalkTalk's sports package was £30, more expensive than Sky's but without any conditions on what entertainment package you have to be on. So theoretically they could work out cheaper in the long run. Probably not financially viable for TT to reduce the price permanently, as unlike BT, they want to make a profit from sports.
TalkTalk TV have been pretty quiet of late, they need to start pushing their offerings more in my opinion. My brother is with TT and all his related emails go to my account. By the looks of it, they offer more deals to their existing customers than potential ones!
BT on the other hand, are in the best position of all to challenge Sky, and I believe they will do if they win more football rights next year.
Yes, but don't go thinking they are a better company, they get the rights but somebody will have to pay for it...just remind me which company controls the cabinets that fibre comes from, sets line rental prices etc?
It does seem ridiculous that Sky entertains haggling on its pricing to such a degree. When word gets around it just serves to make long standing customers, who loyally pay increases when they get asked for, feel like idiots. How to alienate your clientele!
I don't think the market is yet working effectively - people just don't realise there is an alternative to their dish now in the form of BT and Talk Talk (they probably already know about Virgin if they live in a Virgin area due to the amount of marketing rubbish that gets letterboxed).
What the wholesaling of Sky Sport by BT & Talk Talk does now is provide people with a real alternative platform for people who just can't do without their fottball (which is why Sky has been desperately trying to hobble BT). We may finally see some real competition in the market.
What it has done is made it more expensive for sports fan, football fans in particular. What they could original watch on one platform has now been split between two, so if they want to watch the full batch of live matches they need two subscriptions.
BT won't be any different to Sky when it gets a foothold, prices will inevitable go up as each season goes by, the freebies will stop then well see threads like BT ripping off it's customers.
What it has done is made it more expensive for sports fan, football fans in particular. What they could original watch on one platform has now been split between two, so if they want to watch the full batch of live matches they need two subscriptions.
BT won't be any different to Sky when it gets a foothold, prices will inevitable go up as each season goes by, the freebies will stop then well see threads like BT ripping off it's customers.
They will actually be worse, not only would they have lucrative sports rights, they also have telecommunications sown up as well.
The sales rights have been deliberately split between at least two suppliers to stop a monopoly situation. Who says if Sky still had a monopoly you wouldn't be paying as much as you are now with two suppliers? The Premier League would still want their money from whatever source.
£21.50 per month but do it through topcashback and you will get 25% off so that it makes it £16.12 per month plus £75.00 bill credit plus £116.15 cashback...bargain...up to you then if you want to keep it after the first 12 months.
If you cancel you still have the box and have the freesat channels in addition to the freeview channels.
Hate Sky all you want, but you cannot say that is a bad offer, give it a try, nothing to lose really...then cancel after a year....what's it cost you a couple of quid.
A rather complicated way to do it and it relies totally on yourself doing the research - and it's not exactly "virtually nothing".
Like i said, it relies on people paying several hundres of pounds a year (for channels they don't want or need) in order to get it the way you suggest.
But the takeup of FTTC has also been low (hence HMGs latest TV adverts) and the rollout is continuing at present.
I really don't think people yet realise that superfast broadband with multicast makes reliable TV possible, and that getting all services over the phone line will work out cheaper than getting a separate satellite receiver and broadband connection.
Plus Talk Talk have hardly been high profile and had a bad name in the past.
The sales rights have been deliberately split between at least two suppliers to stop a monopoly situation. Who says if Sky still had a monopoly you wouldn't be paying as much as you are now with two suppliers? The Premier League would still want their money from whatever source.
Just look at past years price rises for Sky's sports package, £1.50-£2.50 a year increase.
Now compare what they are paying now for the same amount of games.
Competition is not always in favour of the customer.....
Well in a round about way they do, all the free to air stuff we had was purchased up by Sky at inflated prices and then they force you to buy a over price subscription that they increase regularly to see what you had before.
Football, Cricket, movies were on BBC ITV then hey Sky comes sling purchases the rights at silly prices causes media inflation and viewers are forced to pay the stupid subscription prices to see what they actually had before.
Movies I don't see anything different then before Sky came along...BBC, ITV still had to wait 2/3 years before they could show movies.
Without Sky can you imagine the state of British football, Cricket I don't know about, but if they are getting more money then it can only be good for cricket.
Indeed.
When BBC and ITV held the sporting events rights of the major sports before Sky came along, they only had to cover the specific big events of the major sports classified as the crown jewels events today. Though the BBC and ITV did cover more (sometimes all) events of some sports but not so much of other sports events outwith the big event and in many cases nothing.
Sky Sports can and do provide coverage of sporting events well over and beyond what BBC and ITV ever did such as coming on air much earlier and ending coverage much later than BBC and ITV did.
Plus Sky show a full season of all European tour golf events and PGA Tour events live whereas the BBC only covered European tour events held in the UK. Also in the tennis, Sky cover Men's masters events in terms of the ATP tour, but the BBC have only ever covered Queens Club on the ATP Tour.
There needs to be protection of all the big crown jewel sporting events for those with just FTA terrestrial. Non crown jewel events don't need to be on FTA terrestrial so if they were poorly covered or not at all by BBC or ITV when they once held the rights then it's only fair that Sky Sports (and now BT as well) are able to cover it properly albeit charging at premium subscription cost.
Indeed there is a loads more sport on Sky Sports and BT Sport than just the events that were once on BBC and ITV during the days of just 3 and 4 TV channels in the UK. And there is still plenty of sport on the terrestrials.
A rather complicated way to do it and it relies totally on yourself doing the research - and it's not exactly "virtually nothing".
Like i said, it relies on people paying several hundres of pounds a year (for channels they don't want or need) in order to get it the way you suggest.
Nothing complicated about it all, just order through the topcashback site, then it's all taken care for you...what is complicated about that?
If you not happy after a year just cancel...anyway you don't have Sky so why should you care one way or the other.
It does make me laugh that those that complain about Sky don't actually have the product, but make a negative comment about the precious TVL and what it offers, they are up in arms about it, even though Sky viewers pay for that as well.
As i said before, you are getting me mixed up with a teenager, I don't buy tablets/phones primarily to watch TV on, but if you want to watch footy in HD on a 5" screen you go for it, just make sure you watch it a few inches from your nose to benefit - Sky go has a more than acceptable picture quality for the odd occasion I use it. I'm sure others with Sky Go would rather the SD picture quality and the abundance of content to a bit of BT sport in 720 resolution.
Hang on you are the one who is getting things mixed up here. We are not talking about your individual needs or that you only use Sky Go occasionally, what we are talking about is how poor Sky Go picture quality is when comparing to Netflix, Iplayer, BT Sport.
Why can’t Sky provide their paying customers with proper HD on Sky Go considering they still charge for HD sub in this day and age?
Also why can’t Sky Go be viewed on proper telly? I guess it is their cheap tactic to sell multiroom so that they don’t allow Sky Go connected to TV when you can connect all above apps to your TV via your mobile or tablet.
Whether you use Sky Go or not it is quite clear that Sky Go is very poor service with very poor picture quality. Instead of defending such a poor service you must ask why they don’t improve it after all you are supposed to believe in better
a) If space for HD channels is a concern you've invested in a crap service, especially if you expect everything to be in HD in this day and age because it's not a premium product.
Why would something that gives you free ‘HD’ be a crap service? At least there is no monthly on going subscription charges and best of all once you invest in freeview HD PVR, it does not stop recording just because you stop paying sub like Sky HD boxes.
Sky HD box without a sub is as useful as a chocolate teapot but freeview PVRs do continue recording and providing service without any restriction or subscription.
Also Freeview is the fastest growing TV platform in UK and there more homes with Freeview than Sky will ever be.
I take it from your reply it was illegally? Because if it was legally you wouldn't have been able to resit telling me.;-)
As normal you assume without knowing the facts. Anyone with VPN can watch any of those shows well before they come to Sky, also there are paid services who offer the same shows online.
Hang on you are the one who is getting things mixed up here. We are not talking about your individual needs or that you only use Sky Go occasionally, what we are talking about is how poor Sky Go picture quality is when comparing to Netflix, Iplayer, BT Sport.
I don't subscribe to a service for anyone else's needs but my own. I'm happy with the service that is provided to me, if anyone has an issue with that, then they are the one with the problem.
Why can’t Sky provide their paying customers with proper HD on Sky Go considering they still charge for HD sub in this day and age?
Also why can’t Sky Go be viewed on proper telly? I guess it is their cheap tactic to sell multiroom so that they don’t allow Sky Go connected to TV when you can connect all above apps to your TV via your mobile or tablet.
I can connect two of my devices to my TV and watch Sky Go, maybe its an inadequacy of your device.
Whether you use Sky Go or not it is quite clear that Sky Go is very poor service with very poor picture quality. Instead of defending such a poor service you must ask why they don’t improve it after all you are supposed to believe in better
Let me make myself clear, Sky Go is for casual viewing, if it was a major part of my service you may have a point, but as it is not you don't.
Why would something that gives you free ‘HD’ be a crap service? At least there is no monthly on going subscription charges and best of all once you invest in freeview HD PVR, it does not stop recording just because you stop paying sub like Sky HD boxes.
Sky HD box without a sub is as useful as a chocolate teapot but freeview PVRs do continue recording and providing service without any restriction or subscription.
Also Freeview is the fastest growing TV platform in UK and there more homes with Freeview than Sky will ever be.
If you value HD so much and expect everything to be in HD you have shot yourself in the foot choosing a service that has no space for a any more HD.
By all means, you carry on sitting there thinking you have a better service when you're recording channels that are only in SD when they are available in HD elsewhere. ;-)
As normal you assume without knowing the facts. Anyone with VPN can watch any of those shows well before they come to Sky, also there are paid services who offer the same shows online.
Your reply was open to interpretation.
So you use a hacked box to circumvent HDCP encrypted video and hide behind a VPN to get content that would be unavailable to you normally with a UK IP address?
I don't subscribe to a service for anyone else's needs but my own.
Ok we got that one, no one is disputing you have the service you need but that does not change the fact the Sky Go is realty poor comparing to Netflx, Iplayer, BT Sport.
You are the one who is paying for HD version of channels I don’t and would not, as much as I like HD, it is the norm not premium anymore as we are not in 2006 anymore.
By all means, you carry on sitting there thinking you have a better service when you're recording channels that are only in SD when they are available in HD elsewhere. ;-)
By all means you carry on paying for HD when it is free on Freeview & Freesat.
So you use a hacked box to circumvent HDCP encrypted video and hide behind a VPN to get content that would be unavailable to you normally with a UK IP address?
It is not a hacked box, it is called ‘custom software. By all means you can carry on being slave to your Sky box, as you only dream of the freedom with other PVRs provide.
Also there are other PVRs who do not require custom firmware etc but would still provide much better functions than your crippled Sky box.
By the way there is nothing wrong or illegal to have a VPN account. Be my guest to wait months for Sky to show those shows on your box when it is available sooner and cheaper somewhere else, after all I guess you believe in better.
I can connect two of my devices to my TV and watch Sky Go, maybe its an inadequacy of your device.
Err no you can't. We are talking about mobile phones and tablets, not laptops, therefore you can't connect your mobile phone to TV and watch Sky go which is an inadequacy of Sky Go not my or your phone.
In the same way if I buy a Sunday paper I pay a premium price get a pile of crap I do not want, — arts, property, literary, motoring, entertainment sections and on top of that is a magazine as much good to me as a chocolate teapot, with boring articles on ladies fashion and mainly uninteresting articles by obscure writers.
All I want is the newspaper with actual news so why do I have to pay a premium price for the junk I do not want that would go straight in my recycling bin? I want a newspaper without this junk but I cannot buy it cheaper without the junk I do not want, I have no choice
Hang on a moment, I do have a choice, I do not have to pay, I do not have to buy, do I, the Sunday paper is simply not worth itr?:D
Comments
Sky's model of packages brings a wide range of channels because the money is shared out from all who subscribe to a package allowing some smaller channels to survive who could never do on their own.
Whether you see this as good or bad is your opinion, but Sky have valid reasons for the way they organise packages.
Virgin do the same, of course. But they are not being attacked in the same way.
Satelitte/cable TV is about providing variety and support for minority channels.
People who want these pay. Those who don't - it seems - do not simply choose not to pay they moan to high heaven on t'internet instead about those who decide they do want to pay to receive these channels.
OK, I accept to a certain extent that packaging up certain channels in bundles is often neccesary. But I still strongly believe that Sky deliberately limit their customers in other ways. What would be wrong with offering a premium HD option to lower-bundle customers?
They do. It just costs the extra HD sub plus what everyone else pays to get the premium channels in the first place.
Unless you negotiate a discount as many do.
If you could just pay extra to add on all the premium channels in HD that other customers pay a lot more to subsidise then that would be a great deal for you but it would be being paid for by the thousands of other Sky customers getting those channels.
I suspect they would not regard that as Sky doing the right thing by the majority of their customers,
I don't think the market is yet working effectively - people just don't realise there is an alternative to their dish now in the form of BT and Talk Talk (they probably already know about Virgin if they live in a Virgin area due to the amount of marketing rubbish that gets letterboxed).
What the wholesaling of Sky Sport by BT & Talk Talk does now is provide people with a real alternative platform for people who just can't do without their fottball (which is why Sky has been desperately trying to hobble BT). We may finally see some real competition in the market.
You reckon...BT doesn't want competition it wants the rights, they get that then watch their prices increase.
Sky Sports (all channels, not just 1&2) has been available on TalkTalk's YouView for a couple of years now and I understand the take up has been very low.
But the takeup of FTTC has also been low (hence HMGs latest TV adverts) and the rollout is continuing at present.
I really don't think people yet realise that superfast broadband with multicast makes reliable TV possible, and that getting all services over the phone line will work out cheaper than getting a separate satellite receiver and broadband connection.
Plus Talk Talk have hardly been high profile and had a bad name in the past.
So they want what Sky want, then.
Last I checked TalkTalk's sports package was £30, more expensive than Sky's but without any conditions on what entertainment package you have to be on. So theoretically they could work out cheaper in the long run. Probably not financially viable for TT to reduce the price permanently, as unlike BT, they want to make a profit from sports.
TalkTalk TV have been pretty quiet of late, they need to start pushing their offerings more in my opinion. My brother is with TT and all his related emails go to my account. By the looks of it, they offer more deals to their existing customers than potential ones!
BT on the other hand, are in the best position of all to challenge Sky, and I believe they will do if they win more football rights next year.
Exactly. When I first considered multicast TV, I had no idea how reliable it would be, and wondered if the IPTV channels would buffer. They never do, the service is smooth like cable TV, and once fibre is rolled out further, more people will discover what you and I have, that this is the future of television, and Sky and their dishes are starting to look rather obsolete.
Yes, but don't go thinking they are a better company, they get the rights but somebody will have to pay for it...just remind me which company controls the cabinets that fibre comes from, sets line rental prices etc?
BT won't be any different to Sky when it gets a foothold, prices will inevitable go up as each season goes by, the freebies will stop then well see threads like BT ripping off it's customers.
They will actually be worse, not only would they have lucrative sports rights, they also have telecommunications sown up as well.
A rather complicated way to do it and it relies totally on yourself doing the research - and it's not exactly "virtually nothing".
Like i said, it relies on people paying several hundres of pounds a year (for channels they don't want or need) in order to get it the way you suggest.
Well, they do with subscription media, it's called bundling, you have to pay for things you don't want there.
No HD either otherwise I'd consider.
Just look at past years price rises for Sky's sports package, £1.50-£2.50 a year increase.
Now compare what they are paying now for the same amount of games.
Competition is not always in favour of the customer.....
3 to 5 channel analogue terrestrial was pathetic.
Indeed.
When BBC and ITV held the sporting events rights of the major sports before Sky came along, they only had to cover the specific big events of the major sports classified as the crown jewels events today. Though the BBC and ITV did cover more (sometimes all) events of some sports but not so much of other sports events outwith the big event and in many cases nothing.
Sky Sports can and do provide coverage of sporting events well over and beyond what BBC and ITV ever did such as coming on air much earlier and ending coverage much later than BBC and ITV did.
Plus Sky show a full season of all European tour golf events and PGA Tour events live whereas the BBC only covered European tour events held in the UK. Also in the tennis, Sky cover Men's masters events in terms of the ATP tour, but the BBC have only ever covered Queens Club on the ATP Tour.
There needs to be protection of all the big crown jewel sporting events for those with just FTA terrestrial. Non crown jewel events don't need to be on FTA terrestrial so if they were poorly covered or not at all by BBC or ITV when they once held the rights then it's only fair that Sky Sports (and now BT as well) are able to cover it properly albeit charging at premium subscription cost.
Indeed there is a loads more sport on Sky Sports and BT Sport than just the events that were once on BBC and ITV during the days of just 3 and 4 TV channels in the UK. And there is still plenty of sport on the terrestrials.
Nothing complicated about it all, just order through the topcashback site, then it's all taken care for you...what is complicated about that?
If you not happy after a year just cancel...anyway you don't have Sky so why should you care one way or the other.
It does make me laugh that those that complain about Sky don't actually have the product, but make a negative comment about the precious TVL and what it offers, they are up in arms about it, even though Sky viewers pay for that as well.
Hang on you are the one who is getting things mixed up here. We are not talking about your individual needs or that you only use Sky Go occasionally, what we are talking about is how poor Sky Go picture quality is when comparing to Netflix, Iplayer, BT Sport.
Why can’t Sky provide their paying customers with proper HD on Sky Go considering they still charge for HD sub in this day and age?
Also why can’t Sky Go be viewed on proper telly? I guess it is their cheap tactic to sell multiroom so that they don’t allow Sky Go connected to TV when you can connect all above apps to your TV via your mobile or tablet.
Whether you use Sky Go or not it is quite clear that Sky Go is very poor service with very poor picture quality. Instead of defending such a poor service you must ask why they don’t improve it after all you are supposed to believe in better
Why would something that gives you free ‘HD’ be a crap service? At least there is no monthly on going subscription charges and best of all once you invest in freeview HD PVR, it does not stop recording just because you stop paying sub like Sky HD boxes.
Sky HD box without a sub is as useful as a chocolate teapot but freeview PVRs do continue recording and providing service without any restriction or subscription.
Also Freeview is the fastest growing TV platform in UK and there more homes with Freeview than Sky will ever be.
As normal you assume without knowing the facts. Anyone with VPN can watch any of those shows well before they come to Sky, also there are paid services who offer the same shows online.
If you value HD so much and expect everything to be in HD you have shot yourself in the foot choosing a service that has no space for a any more HD.
By all means, you carry on sitting there thinking you have a better service when you're recording channels that are only in SD when they are available in HD elsewhere. ;-)
Your reply was open to interpretation.
So you use a hacked box to circumvent HDCP encrypted video and hide behind a VPN to get content that would be unavailable to you normally with a UK IP address?
Ok we got that one, no one is disputing you have the service you need but that does not change the fact the Sky Go is realty poor comparing to Netflx, Iplayer, BT Sport.
Have you got that one?
Let me make myself clear, we are not talking about how often Sky Go is used it is the fact that how poor it is.
Is that clear enough for you?
You are the one who is paying for HD version of channels I don’t and would not, as much as I like HD, it is the norm not premium anymore as we are not in 2006 anymore.
Soon it is 2015 but I see you stuck in 2006!
By all means you carry on paying for HD when it is free on Freeview & Freesat.
It is not a hacked box, it is called ‘custom software. By all means you can carry on being slave to your Sky box, as you only dream of the freedom with other PVRs provide.
Also there are other PVRs who do not require custom firmware etc but would still provide much better functions than your crippled Sky box.
By the way there is nothing wrong or illegal to have a VPN account. Be my guest to wait months for Sky to show those shows on your box when it is available sooner and cheaper somewhere else, after all I guess you believe in better.
Err no you can't. We are talking about mobile phones and tablets, not laptops, therefore you can't connect your mobile phone to TV and watch Sky go which is an inadequacy of Sky Go not my or your phone.
All I want is the newspaper with actual news so why do I have to pay a premium price for the junk I do not want that would go straight in my recycling bin? I want a newspaper without this junk but I cannot buy it cheaper without the junk I do not want, I have no choice
Hang on a moment, I do have a choice, I do not have to pay, I do not have to buy, do I, the Sunday paper is simply not worth itr?:D