Options
History of Sky TV prices
scoobiesnacks
Posts: 3,055 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Does anyone know what Sky prices have been year on year going back a few years? I know they keep on changing the channel packages (just to confuse comparisons no doubt), but presumably its possible to compare Movies, Sports, and Ents packages year on year.
0
Comments
1997 - £11.99 Analogue
1998 - £13.00 Digital
1999 - £14.00
2000 - £16.00
2001 - £16.00
2002 - £17.00
2003 - £18.50
2004 - £19.50
2005 - £20.00
2006 - £21.00
2007 - £21.00
2008 - £22.00
2009 - £22.50
2010 - £23.50
2011 - £25.00
2012 - £26.50
2013 - £27.00
2014 - £28.00
2015 - £30.00
Sky subscription costs from September 1997 for the Sky World package
1997 - £26.99 Analogue
1998 - £28.00 digital
1999 - £30.00
2000 - £32.00
2001 - £34.00
2002 - £37.00
2003 - £40.00
2004 - £41.00
2005 - £42.50
2006 - £43.50
2007 - £45.00
2008 - £47.00
2009 - £48.50
2010 - £52.00
2011 - £53.00
2012 - £55.50
2013 - £57.00
2014 - £61.00
2015 - £64.50
Thanks. Does that exclude HD pack charges?
According to the Bank of England inflation calculator, £28 in 1998 would be £44 in 2014
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=HcQOVf2IBI70atL4gpgI&url=http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/reviews-investigations/pay-tv/trends.pdf&ved=0CDwQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNH9iXWZYL0ZZWIPr1l7L1YwtsUDsA&sig2=VdPOtVOiGaPC3nhFRZ9qng
Option 1 Sky movies plus, The movie channel, Sky Sports £19.98
Option 2 Sky movies plus The movie channel £16.98
Option 3 Sky Movies plus - Sky sports £16.98
Option 4 - The movie channel Sky sports £16.98
Option 5 Sky movies plus - - £ 11.99
Option 6 - The movie channel - £11.99
Option 7 - - Sky sports £5.99
This was before they had many channels and premier league football and concentrated on films..
In the analogue days Sky 1 was thrown in as was the SciFi channel and Bravo which was the reason I took out a subscription. You had more German channels than English channels. I also had a dual system that looked at 13 degrees and the Scandinavian channels with a different decoding system as well as 19 degrees where sky was with it's videoguard decoding which I think they still use.
Before digital there was no BBC or ITV at 19 degrees
and more than the 16 (sixteen) channels we had then too !
As that neatly breaks the 100% increase barrier from 2000, I did a comparison with the Bank of England's Inflation Calculator.
2000 - 2015: Sky World Price increase is 101.5%
2000 - 2014: UK Inflation increase was 50.3% (2015 will be much the same as inflation has now hit near-zero).
Well done to Sky... who appear to have raised prices for Sky World more than double that of inflation since the turn of the millennium, and by 5.7% (7.7% pa) in the month when inflation has hit zero%.
Inflation-busters extaordinaire! I wonder if they will include those statistics in their TV advertising?
At least IPTV from the likes of BT is looking promising as better broadband becomes more common.
IPTV is the only hope I think, Netflix, BT etc. But there are also dangers from Sky's monopolistic hold on Channels which IPTV will struggle to compete with. And BT seem keen to stick to Sports only.
For now, yes... but as fibre becomes more widely available and as BT gain experience I think they will expand their offerings. I am sure that I read a while back that TV distribution by multicast IP is somewhat less expensive than by satellite, maybe digital terrestrial too (which has too little capacity anyway) so they can gain an advantage with that. And as BT gains greater subscriber numbers, it will become a more attractive option for more channels as their contracts with Sky come up for renewal.
Pretty sure that isn't the case for a mass audience. The BBC told me IP is a lot more expensive. It is cheaper for one to one transmission.
Every time the football rights come up for auction Sky have to pay more to obtain them. The costs are then passed on to all customers whether or not they have the sports package or not.
Sky Movies is a little bit expensive now but the sports package is just outrageous. >:(
I don't know what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that IP unicast (one to one) is cheaper than multicast? If so, there would be no multicast!
If you are comparing IP unicast with satellite or terrestrial then I am sure you are right, but how can the BBC even cost IP multicasting large audiences effectively when they haven't done it?
Not just Sky though is it? Look at stamps, they have done worse, and i am sure other markets have as well, prices aren't just about inflation, there are other factors, like expansion, higher costs etc to take into account.
1st class stamp was 27p in 2000, this was 60p by 2012, which is a 120% increas in 12 years.
2nd class stamp was 19p in 2000, this was 50p in 2012, which is a 160% increase.
Why bring stamps into it in a Satellite TV thread about a broadcaster? No doubt you could find some price somewhere to demonstrate anything you wanted!
Compare it with the [Colour] TV Licence though, by all means... OK, I will.
£104 in 2000, £145.50 in 2015 i.e. 40% increase.
TV Licence: 10.3% less than inflation.
Sky World 51.2% more than inflation.
Speaks for itself.
To show that other companies also increase their prices above inflation!
Sky movies is outrageous as I could get Netflix and subscribe to the family pack and still pay less than sky movies in HD!
Not valid IMO , all TV services have expanded. Eg BBC iplayer, BBC online