People have to convert all their tellies around switchover, not just the one needed to get them into that list.
And soon after switchover, no one has any tellies to convert, give or take the odd person moving from DTT to DSat/cable, or vice versa.
But the point is that if someone has previously converted their main set to Freeview, is it likely at DSO that they will then get Sky solely for the purpose of converting a 2nd or 3rd set?
Obviously we'll have to wait till post 2012 to see what happens. But I would suggest that all the stats show that DSO is an extremely trivial factor in the growth of Sky customers.
It's also worth bearing in mind how much Sky customers are spending - now £541 on average excluding VAT, ie well over £600 including VAT.
If you've already got Freeview on your main set quite happily and then suddenly realise at the last minute that you need to convert a 2nd set because of DSO are you really going to think better ring up Sky and start paying them £600+?
Sky also skew heavily ABC1 and young - the exact opposite of the sort of people who are holding out till DSO.
Obviously we'll have to wait till post 2012 to see what happens. But I would suggest that all the stats show that DSO is an extremely trivial factor in the growth of Sky customers.
Figures for what platform analogue viewers chose at DSO in the South West in 2009:-
In the West Country, which completed its switch to digital TV in September this year, 80% of analogue homes chose Freeview for their main set compared with 12% for Sky and 8% for Virgin, according to the DTT operator. Freeview received a similar boost in the Border region and west Wales, which switched earlier in the year, it claimed.
What ever he wants the government allows, I was shocked when he had to give Sky sports to other platforms at cost price, but I bet the government will change that at some point and he will get his way again.
Contradiction much? If he wanted to get away he would never been forced to offer sky sports on other platforms. So where does the government allow him to do what he does using your example?
Freesat and Freeview is not pay T.v and is not a competition, but the way Sky went on you would have thought they was. Freeview was a replacement for the analogue system and don't get me started on that. Freesat was a system so people who could not get Freeview would still have Free T.V
Sky even complained about Freesat, just like they are complaining against You View.
It does have a "top-up tv" element to it. I have freeview as well. It comes part of the television now. We still have freesat/freeview. Murdoch is not getting his way again.
Youview has still got the go-ahead as well.
The problem here is that Sky have got content that should be on normal T.V, why should people have to pay again to get T.V?
Sky wants everything and people just say oh well it won't hurt. But it does, because if you want to watch football you now have to pay.
Content that should be on normal tv- like? What do you mean? So Sky can't offer any content according to you?
You ask them to invest, they invest- now that they do, you still have a problem. Sky can't win.
Sky wants everything - really? :eek::eek::eek:
I watch Football. ITV shows championship as well as the world cup, same as the BBC. ITV and BBC can compete against Sky for sports rights. Sky is facing competition from ESPN as well. So? Really, everything? Doubt it.
In fact Sky appreciated sports. It recognised it's importance. No longer squashed to wee segments.
it is because they had the money of the Murdoch empire, Sky could make a loss because there was money to plough into it.
Murdoch saved jobs. He could plough money. He got a massive return. His newspaper "The Times" is losing money, he is still investing. We should really be grateful. He is providing jobs.
Do you really think Sky gives a crap about their customers? they know full well that people have little choice if they want to watch their beloved footbal and that is where Sky makes their money
Sky would have to put their customers first, if they were to maintain their position. They would have had to in order to get to their position.
Little choice- opinion. Some beg to differ.
I don't hate Sky, I hate Murdoch. i do beleive that Sky is too big and should be cranked
If Sky offered something I wanted then yes I would go for Sky, been considering going to Sky broadband for a while to save money.
But thinking it would only save me a fiver a month and my broadband is great.
Sky T.V have got some good stuff on, but it is also 95% rubbish.
I want a decent pay T.V system, that I can customise to the way I want it, but that is not going to happen.
You don't hate Sky despite your rant. You hate Murdoch for no reason. You contradict yourself by saying Sky is too big. It has competition. How do you define "big"?
The rest- your choice, your opinion?
Would you like his babies or would a big photo of him keep you happy?
A big photo of Rupert and James would make me very happy.:D:D But i would love to meet them and say how fantastic they both are and how Sky TV has changed my life for the better. :D
Ian.
A big photo of Rupert and James would make me very happy.:D:D But i would love to meet them and say how fantastic they both are and how Sky TV has changed my life for the better. :D
Ian.
I'm guessing you'd want that photo on a wipe-clean surface?
A big photo of Rupert and James would make me very happy.:D:D But i would love to meet them and say how fantastic they both are and how Sky TV has changed my life for the better. :D
Ian.
Comments
But the point is that if someone has previously converted their main set to Freeview, is it likely at DSO that they will then get Sky solely for the purpose of converting a 2nd or 3rd set?
Obviously we'll have to wait till post 2012 to see what happens. But I would suggest that all the stats show that DSO is an extremely trivial factor in the growth of Sky customers.
It's also worth bearing in mind how much Sky customers are spending - now £541 on average excluding VAT, ie well over £600 including VAT.
If you've already got Freeview on your main set quite happily and then suddenly realise at the last minute that you need to convert a 2nd set because of DSO are you really going to think better ring up Sky and start paying them £600+?
Sky also skew heavily ABC1 and young - the exact opposite of the sort of people who are holding out till DSO.
Figures for what platform analogue viewers chose at DSO in the South West in 2009:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/02/freeview-digital-tv?INTCMP=SRCH
As expected the 'pay' take up at 20% was far below the 50% national figure.
Contradiction much? If he wanted to get away he would never been forced to offer sky sports on other platforms. So where does the government allow him to do what he does using your example?
Really? Every government we had is/was stupid. Murdoch doesn't really dominate as such. He is a big player, granted. Then so many people are.
Power hungry- so becuase he is successful at business, he is now power-hungry. Riiiiiight?:rolleyes:
About time he retied- ageist much?
It does have a "top-up tv" element to it. I have freeview as well. It comes part of the television now. We still have freesat/freeview. Murdoch is not getting his way again.
Youview has still got the go-ahead as well.
Virgin offering their boxes and Bt as well is not competing with Sky. riiiiiiiiiight? :rolleyes:
If something came along- it is called competition. Sky isn't going to sit there. They are going to compete. Like the other company will. Competition.
Content that should be on normal tv- like? What do you mean? So Sky can't offer any content according to you?
You ask them to invest, they invest- now that they do, you still have a problem. Sky can't win.
Sky wants everything - really? :eek::eek::eek:
I watch Football. ITV shows championship as well as the world cup, same as the BBC. ITV and BBC can compete against Sky for sports rights. Sky is facing competition from ESPN as well. So? Really, everything? Doubt it.
In fact Sky appreciated sports. It recognised it's importance. No longer squashed to wee segments.
Murdoch saved jobs. He could plough money. He got a massive return. His newspaper "The Times" is losing money, he is still investing. We should really be grateful. He is providing jobs.
A Monoply? It is not dominant. It faces competition. Hardly a monply?
What has transport got to do with Sky?
Sky would have to put their customers first, if they were to maintain their position. They would have had to in order to get to their position.
Little choice- opinion. Some beg to differ.
You don't hate Sky despite your rant. You hate Murdoch for no reason. You contradict yourself by saying Sky is too big. It has competition. How do you define "big"?
The rest- your choice, your opinion?
Sorry for any grammatical errors- I was rushing.
Would you like his babies or would a big photo of him keep you happy?
A big photo of Rupert and James would make me very happy.:D:D But i would love to meet them and say how fantastic they both are and how Sky TV has changed my life for the better.
Ian.
Still looking at it again in a certain light I could be tempted.
My Mark Thompson posted is looking a bit faded.
I'm guessing you'd want that photo on a wipe-clean surface?
Are you typing that post with one hand?
Of course!!:D:D
Ian.
Aha I thought so