Options

Free HD box

WillowFaeWillowFae Posts: 5,225
Forum Member
Just thought that this might help anyone else (apologies if someone has already posted this).

We subscribed to HD when Sky first launched it but 4 and a bit years later the box was on its last legs. It froze, it was very slow responding to the remote, and we were very concerned about how long it would last for. We had cancelled the HD part of our sub a couple of years ago but were prepared to add it again if we could try and get a new box out of them.

So, I rung them up and asked them if there was any sort of deal they could do us if we resubscribed. They said no, because it was one free HD box per household. So I pointed out that we hadn't had a free HD box as we paid £300 when they were first launched. This hadn't occured to the guy we talked to and he conceded that we could therefore claim our new free one.

Had to pay £29 for the engineer to come round but that was a lot better than the amount we were looking at paying for a box :D

So, if you paid for one first time round and it is failing then it might be worth seeing if you can get a new one for free.

Comments

  • Options
    sodafountainsodafountain Posts: 16,863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    WillowFae wrote: »
    They said no, because it was one free HD box per household. So I pointed out that we hadn't had a free HD box as we paid £300 when they were first launched. This hadn't occured to the guy we talked to and he conceded that we could therefore claim our new free one.

    It's not 1 FREE box per household, it's 1 SUBSIDISED box per household.

    Even if you paid £300 for your 1st box, it was still subsidised, as has been said many times, early adopters of technology will always pay more.
  • Options
    WillowFaeWillowFae Posts: 5,225
    Forum Member
    Fair enough, but I meant free to the consumer, which I would have thought was fairly obvious.
  • Options
    simon194simon194 Posts: 1,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WillowFae wrote: »
    Fair enough, but I meant free to the consumer, which I would have thought was fairly obvious.

    As sodafountain said, in the context of the Sky deals it's 1 free or 1 subsidised box per household.

    You just got lucky with the CS person because even if you bought your original box at the subsidised price of £300 you aren't entitled to a free HD box as well.
  • Options
    Kingsd316Kingsd316 Posts: 892
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You def got lucky, i didnt even get a free box and i bought mine completely unsubsidised due to the fact i lived in a flat at the time and sky wouldnt install it on 1 feed!
  • Options
    Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,531
    Forum Member
    Kingsd316 wrote: »
    You def got lucky, i didnt even get a free box and i bought mine completely unsubsidised due to the fact i lived in a flat at the time and sky wouldnt install it on 1 feed!

    Except you bought it subsidised, there were no unsubsidised HD boxes - unless you bought direct from Sky and paid £399 for it (which I've never actually heard of anyone doing?).

    So if you were told it was unsubsidised, and it didn't come direct from Sky at £399, then it was a subsidised box - with the seller pocketing any extra money.
  • Options
    sodafountainsodafountain Posts: 16,863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    WillowFae wrote: »
    Fair enough, but I meant free to the consumer, which I would have thought was fairly obvious.

    Not sure what you mean, i thought my post was fairly obvious :rolleyes:
  • Options
    coopermanyorkscoopermanyorks Posts: 21,215
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do some posters have to be so Anal in their postings ?....


    I was given a free box,free HD for 6 months and half price Sky world for 6 months,I have to self install and pay £15 for delivery,but the deals are there
  • Options
    OrbitalzoneOrbitalzone Posts: 12,627
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why do some posters have to be so Anal in their postings ?....

    Being protected by forum annonymity allows people to reply is such a manner unfortunately....some people seem obsessed with giving the most right and technically accurate answer (even if out of context) and will go to the most minute detail to ensure they are the most correct.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,983
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ^ Agreed.
  • Options
    sodafountainsodafountain Posts: 16,863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Being protected by forum annonymity allows people to reply is such a manner unfortunately....some people seem obsessed with giving the most right and technically accurate answer (even if out of context) and will go to the most minute detail to ensure they are the most correct.

    So what, we should all post incorrect information :rolleyes:
  • Options
    OrbitalzoneOrbitalzone Posts: 12,627
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sigh, of course not that is just daft!

    But it's very easy to give what might well be interpretted by others as arrogant replies. It's very hard to sometimes realise that a reply is in jest / being light hearted but might be read as deadly serious. Some replies will appear to be posted simply to try and out do the last post. Some posters will clearly spend some time looking up 'evidence' to back their answers (and rely far to heavily on Wikipedia!)

    The best example I can think of funnily enough is the "rolles eyes" icon, to me at least, it looks like a sarcastic icon..... where as a "slaps head" or "shoots themselves" icon would be far more appropriate.

    Anyhow I'm sure I've sufficiently pissed off a few members now :D

    Season's greetings to one and all


    ps, my comments were not directed at any forum member in this thread, it was simply a general reply to the question... apologies if it was interpretted any other way.
Sign In or Register to comment.