I got a letter today & there is small increases in call charges but I never use the landline much so it's quite insignificant to me. Also, if I renewed my contract for a year the Broadband price comes down from £10 to £7.50. I have the Sky freetalk or lite phone package, Variety + Education pack & unlimited broadband already so was quite happy with the changes.
Am I missing something? According to BTs site, you pay:
17.99 for TV, Broadband and Calls
11.54 for Line Rental
11.99 for Sky Sports 1+2 & ESPN
Which comes to £41.52 a month for BT Vision, BT Broadband, BT Line Rental, Weekend Calls, Sky Sports 1+2 & ESPN, a free BT Home Hub wireless router, and free connection (worth £128) if needed. This seems dead cheap to me. Admitedly there is a £60 fee for the box, but that's pretty good if you also want a freeview recorder.
According to this article the cost has gone up of the Premiership deal by £309m. Divided by £3 this means there are 103m Sky Sports Subscribers. Which can't be correct!
According to this article the cost has gone up of the Premiership deal by £309m. Divided by £3 this means there are 103m Sky Sports Subscribers. Which can't be correct!
or are my sums wrong!
That's the amount Sky pays the Ptremier League for the right to show live PL matches. Nothing to do with the number of Sky subscribers.
However for info:
If we ignore wholesale revenue and advertising revenue (which are both very small in comparison), Sky has approx 5.5m Sky Sports subscribers on the Sky platform. So to recoup an extra £103m of costs they would have to charge each Sky Sports subscriber an extra 103m / 5.5m = £18.73 per year = £1.56 per month, or £1.83 per month including VAT.
Which actually goes a long way to explaining Sky's price rise of £3 per month (bearing in mind general inflation and other content changes)
The amount VM paid Sky for sky sports up to 14 May 2010 was the old rate card and since then is the new regulated wholesale price set by the OFCOM formula (with the difference into escrow while CAT appeal is heard).
(The other article is confused because of Sky's deal with VM for basic and HD channels. That does not change the fact that the price for Sky Sports is the regulated wholesale price).
Sorry but people are copying incorrect information. One journalist doesn't understand what is going on, writes an article with a very simple basic error in it and everyone else copies it.
VM's separate deal with Sky is for basics, HD and the sale of VMTV.
Anyone familiar with the OFCOM process will be aware it applies to VM, BT and TUTV and the BBC article confirms this.
"Sky is putting up the price of its Sky Sports channels, raising the cost to BT and Virgin ..........."
this is the problem when you got a near monopoly, able to do what they want and people are silly enough to pay for it.
I got rid of Sky years ago and i did not have the sport or movie channels, but the price was too high for me, since 90% of the stuff on sky are repeats and old stuff.
Makes me so pleased that I don't have to pay £140 a year on a T.V licence and then pay a large amount of money on top for the trash that is on T.v.
Sky could decide to not increase with the VAT charge but it would cost millions
Not if this £3 rise already takes the VAT rise into account.
What I'm saying is that if VAT wasn't due to increase, Sky may have 'only' increased prices at the same rate as they always have done in the past, i.e. inflation or just above inflation. Let's say £2 for arguments sake if VAT was to stay at 17.5%
With VAT rising to 20%, (and we know they like to keep the prices rounded), they could just increase by an extra £1 in September, pocket the difference for 4 months and then proclaim in January that they 'aren't implementing the VAT rise' - whereas in fact it's already been in place 4 months previously. People think it's a good deal, and far from costing them millions, Sky pocket a decent amount during those 4 months.
Although I agree with you, knowing Sky, it will be £3 now and another 2.5% in January. :cool:
Not if this £3 rise already takes the VAT rise into account.
What I'm saying is that if VAT wasn't due to increase, Sky may have 'only' increased prices at the same rate as they always have done in the past, i.e. inflation or just above inflation. Let's say £2 for arguments sake if VAT was to stay at 17.5%
With VAT rising to 20%, (and we know they like to keep the prices rounded), they could just increase by an extra £1 in September, pocket the difference for 4 months and then proclaim in January that they 'aren't implementing the VAT rise' - whereas in fact it's already been in place 4 months previously. People think it's a good deal, and far from costing them millions, Sky pocket a decent amount during those 4 months.
Although I agree with you, knowing Sky, it will be £3 now and another 2.5% in January. :cool:
But as said, the 2.5% is nothing to do with Sky, its' Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg.
They reduced it by 2.5% last time, so there is no reason to think they won't pass on the hike
wrong, very work, I work for BT and was selling it today
trust me, you dont need a broze pack
call them or check via website
Maybe you should tell your employer to clarify that bit on their website:
1) Value packs start at £14.99 a month. 12 month minimum term. Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 can then be added for £11.99 each (or £16.99 if bought together), one month minimum term, service will go live on the BT Vision service by 1 August but can be pre-ordered from 1 July. Viewing card included. Subject to availability, exclusions and conditions.
Sky Sports News will be removed off DTT.
Sky Sports 1 & 2 will be on TUTV so won't include 3/4.
Sky Sports 1 and 2 HD will be on Virgin (but not 3/4).
can anyone see a lot of football being moved to sky sports 3 and 4.
These deals with BT etc, are only for sky sports 1 and 2, so what is stopping sky moving the prime sporting events to sky sports 3 and 4?
this is the problem when you got a near monopoly, able to do what they want and people are silly enough to pay for it.
I got rid of Sky years ago and i did not have the sport or movie channels, but the price was too high for me, since 90% of the stuff on sky are repeats and old stuff.
Makes me so pleased that I don't have to pay £140 a year on a T.V licence and then pay a large amount of money on top for the trash that is on T.v.
I cancelled a few years back and thought I would miss it but looking back I'm so pleased I did. Saved several hundred quid and time wasted watching sh!t shows. With a decent broadband connection I download any shows that I really want to see that are only on Sky.
The more I read about Murdoch and his shady dealings, and the damage Sky has done to the football situation in the country the more I am glad I dumped it and went to Freeview.
can anyone see a lot of football being moved to sky sports 3 and 4.
These deals with BT etc, are only for sky sports 1 and 2, so what is stopping sky moving the prime sporting events to sky sports 3 and 4?
Well, I'm going to have to do the maths here and assess my options. I'm already on BT total broadband, and there is also Virgin cable from the previous owner.
My objection to this is that (despite being a football fan) I have almost no interest in Premiership football. Internationals, Champions League, Championship, yes. But the main reason for me having Sky Sports is rugby union (Guinness Premiership and Internationals) and cricket. I feel that I'm already subsidising Premiership football viewers, and I don't see why I should have to stump up £3 extra a month for no return. In fact there's less next season, as Sky have lost the rights to a lot of Premiership rugby, including the final, to ESPN.
Comments
http://sky.com/morebbvalue.
If your doing this without a vision pack then the prices would be
£12.79 line, weekend calls
£11.99 Sky Sports 1, 2, and ESPN
£15.99 BB
Total price £40.77
£60 BOX CHARGE
You should have waited 6 weeks or so, and then got the 3 free months when the footy starts ;-/
According to this article the cost has gone up of the Premiership deal by £309m. Divided by £3 this means there are 103m Sky Sports Subscribers. Which can't be correct!
or are my sums wrong!
More reasons to switch to BT methinks.
But worse quality?
That's the amount Sky pays the Ptremier League for the right to show live PL matches. Nothing to do with the number of Sky subscribers.
However for info:
If we ignore wholesale revenue and advertising revenue (which are both very small in comparison), Sky has approx 5.5m Sky Sports subscribers on the Sky platform. So to recoup an extra £103m of costs they would have to charge each Sky Sports subscriber an extra 103m / 5.5m = £18.73 per year = £1.56 per month, or £1.83 per month including VAT.
Which actually goes a long way to explaining Sky's price rise of £3 per month (bearing in mind general inflation and other content changes)
Not according to http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1013701/sky-hikes-prices-bt-offers-its-sports-channels-cheap/
And what of Sky’s other rival, Virgin Media, previously a strong critic of Sky’s dominance of the pay-TV market? Well, apparently it signed a separate deal with Sky when it bought those channels recently, so this won’t affect it. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em...
or http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/30/sky-raises-prices
Rival Virgin Media is understood to be unaffected, as it has already signed a separate deal with Sky.
So it looks like Virgin prices not affected as we also havn't heard from then about this
Virgin prices are http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=205406&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1437136&highlight=
Sorry but people are copying incorrect information. One journalist doesn't understand what is going on, writes an article with a very simple basic error in it and everyone else copies it.
VM's separate deal with Sky is for basics, HD and the sale of VMTV.
Anyone familiar with the OFCOM process will be aware it applies to VM, BT and TUTV and the BBC article confirms this.
"Sky is putting up the price of its Sky Sports channels, raising the cost to BT and Virgin ..........."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10472058.stm
That is the first line of the number 1 story on the BBC Business website. It would not remain there for long if it was wrong.
I got rid of Sky years ago and i did not have the sport or movie channels, but the price was too high for me, since 90% of the stuff on sky are repeats and old stuff.
Makes me so pleased that I don't have to pay £140 a year on a T.V licence and then pay a large amount of money on top for the trash that is on T.v.
Not if a deal already signed with Virgin.
Also why if this includes Virgin have they not said anything. They would be screaming the roof off......
Lastly except for the first paragraph of the beeb story only BT is mentioned in these stories.
Oh and the Guardian story was from Wednesday and the BBC from today 24 hours later.
That is still for January as it is a government tax increase and nothing to do with Sky.
I know, but there's nothing stopping Sky increasing the cost vastly in September and pocketing the VAT difference until January.
VAT doesn't increase until January.
Sky could decide to not increase with the VAT charge but it would cost millions so don't hope for it.
Price will rise £3 in September then another 2.5% in January.....
Not if this £3 rise already takes the VAT rise into account.
What I'm saying is that if VAT wasn't due to increase, Sky may have 'only' increased prices at the same rate as they always have done in the past, i.e. inflation or just above inflation. Let's say £2 for arguments sake if VAT was to stay at 17.5%
With VAT rising to 20%, (and we know they like to keep the prices rounded), they could just increase by an extra £1 in September, pocket the difference for 4 months and then proclaim in January that they 'aren't implementing the VAT rise' - whereas in fact it's already been in place 4 months previously. People think it's a good deal, and far from costing them millions, Sky pocket a decent amount during those 4 months.
Although I agree with you, knowing Sky, it will be £3 now and another 2.5% in January. :cool:
But as said, the 2.5% is nothing to do with Sky, its' Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg.
They reduced it by 2.5% last time, so there is no reason to think they won't pass on the hike
It's a good one.
I know why:
Sky Sports News will be removed off DTT.
Sky Sports 1 & 2 will be on TUTV so won't include 3/4.
Sky Sports 1 and 2 HD will be on Virgin (but not 3/4).
You must have a Vision Pack before you can add Sky Sports. The minimum is £14.99 per month.
http://www.btvision.bt.com/prices/
wrong, very work, I work for BT and was selling it today
trust me, you dont need a broze pack
call them or check via website
Maybe you should tell your employer to clarify that bit on their website:
1) Value packs start at £14.99 a month. 12 month minimum term. Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 can then be added for £11.99 each (or £16.99 if bought together), one month minimum term, service will go live on the BT Vision service by 1 August but can be pre-ordered from 1 July. Viewing card included. Subject to availability, exclusions and conditions.
http://www.btvision.bt.com/prices/
can anyone see a lot of football being moved to sky sports 3 and 4.
These deals with BT etc, are only for sky sports 1 and 2, so what is stopping sky moving the prime sporting events to sky sports 3 and 4?
houseparty
I cancelled a few years back and thought I would miss it but looking back I'm so pleased I did. Saved several hundred quid and time wasted watching sh!t shows. With a decent broadband connection I download any shows that I really want to see that are only on Sky.
The more I read about Murdoch and his shady dealings, and the damage Sky has done to the football situation in the country the more I am glad I dumped it and went to Freeview.
That is so true they could do that!!
My objection to this is that (despite being a football fan) I have almost no interest in Premiership football. Internationals, Champions League, Championship, yes. But the main reason for me having Sky Sports is rugby union (Guinness Premiership and Internationals) and cricket. I feel that I'm already subsidising Premiership football viewers, and I don't see why I should have to stump up £3 extra a month for no return. In fact there's less next season, as Sky have lost the rights to a lot of Premiership rugby, including the final, to ESPN.