DS Forums

 
 

Paying for extra channels


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-07-2009, 13:03
Rojcrad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ammanford
Posts: 64

To save me getting a severe tounge lashing at home - can anyone tell me how I can go about getting some of the pay channels on my Foxsat HD
Rojcrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-07-2009, 13:05
GaseousClay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Worcester
Posts: 4,185
you can't
GaseousClay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 14:16
davemurgatroyd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 12,689
The only way is to sell it and get Sky
davemurgatroyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 14:29
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
As said, you can't.

Just point out that the value of pay channels from Sky is pretty appalling and only losers (or those who cannot get out and about for some reason) need more than you can get from Freesat/Freeview. Plus, the money saved can be used for something much better than Sky's channels of repeats and cheap imports.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 15:53
NewWorldMan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,190
It seems to me that a Sky sub is only justified if you are either a sports fanatic, a movies buff or an HD fanatic. Or maybe if you have kids and want them to be hooked on Disney, etc. I see so many posts both here and elsewhere along the lines of "I/we have Sky but hardly ever watch it."
NewWorldMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 16:27
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
Just point out that the value of pay channels from Sky is pretty appalling and only losers (or those who cannot get out and about for some reason) need more than you can get from Freesat/Freeview. Plus, the money saved can be used for something much better than Sky's channels of repeats and cheap imports.
That's your personal and heavily biased opinion, it's a shame you're so unconfident in your views as to feel you have to attack anyone who subscribes to Sky - calling them 'losers'.

I happily subscribe to Sky, and watch high quality TV not available elsewhere - most of which is on Sky subscription channels.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 16:45
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
That's your personal and heavily biased opinion
It's my opinion.

Obviously it's heavily biased towards, erm, my opinion.

it's a shame you're so unconfident in your views
There is no such word as 'unconfident'.

See what happens when you watch too much brain softening Sky?

as to feel you have to attack anyone who subscribes to Sky - calling them 'losers'.
I don't attack anyone, whether they are a loser or not.

I just have enough of a life that I don't need to pay extra for yet more TV. There's plenty available without subscription.

I happily subscribe to Sky, and watch high quality TV not available elsewhere - most of which is on Sky subscription channels.
So why are you lurking in a 'Freesat' forum and jumping into threads to promote Sky? Are you a paid shill?
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 17:14
White-Knight
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
Personally I'm against any form of top up tv. Its the thin end of the wage. Its starts off as extra channels and the risk is it soon becomes top up for the best channels. Result is Free tv effectively becomes pay tv if you don't want to watch just the rubbish that left.
White-Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 17:21
Panman1300
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Glorious Kingdom of Fife
Posts: 298
To save me getting a severe tounge lashing at home - can anyone tell me how I can go about getting some of the pay channels on my Foxsat HD
mmm.Oh dear, it looks to me like it's the tongue lashing for you! Good luck.
Panman1300 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 17:46
NewWorldMan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,190
Personally I'm against any form of top up tv. Its the thin end of the wage. Its starts off as extra channels and the risk is it soon becomes top up for the best channels. Result is Free tv effectively becomes pay tv if you don't want to watch just the rubbish that left.
There is that risk but I think having top-up TV that is different type of content shouldn't cause dilution. E.g., suppose something like Sky's biography channel was available as top-up. There is no equivalent of that on Freesat so I can't see that as being a dilution threat. (OTOH, what you could get is periodically added new top-up channels at the expense of new FTA ones!)

Having said that I'm perfectly happy with Freesat as it is.
NewWorldMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 22:30
hillel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 207
Just point out that the value of pay channels from Sky is pretty appalling.
Yes, Sky is expensive. However, if it was such poor value so many of us wouldn't be customers.:yawn:

and only losers ......
You really have a line in twattle, don't you.

Plus, the money saved can be used for something much better than Sky's channels of repeats and cheap imports.
Why not discuss something you are better informed about?
hillel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2009, 08:32
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
Yes, Sky is expensive. However, if it was such poor value so many of us wouldn't be customers.
Some people really are wedded to their TV's and watch them for hours a day so they so really do need extra soma.

You really have a line in twattle, don't you.
Sorry, but I do feel that people who watch so much TV that they need to pay extra for the Sky mixes can't have much of a life.

Why not discuss something you are better informed about?
Well, this is a Freesat+ forum so why we are still discussing Sky's rubbish I'm not quite sure.

However I'm quite well informed about it because I have heard from so many others who have got wise, realised the lack of good content, and cancelled.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2009, 20:20
drevil666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 67
handbags (or is that Freesat/Sky remotes) at the ready - round 2
drevil666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2009, 20:26
GaseousClay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Worcester
Posts: 4,185
handbags (or is that Freesat/Sky remotes) at the ready - round 2
it gets worse than this sometimes. We need that handbagicon
GaseousClay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2009, 20:45
hillel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 207
Sorry, but I do feel that people who watch so much TV that they need to pay extra for the Sky mixes can't have much of a life.
Or maybe, we just like the choice.

Well, this is a Freesat+ forum so why we are still discussing Sky's rubbish I'm not quite sure.
Don't know about you. I'm just passing a little bit of time while waiting for a Humax firmware update.
hillel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2009, 21:37
SWIZZ?
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cambs
Posts: 874
Don't know about you. I'm just passing a little bit of time while waiting for a Humax firmware update.
Sorry that will be so boring for you !

I abandoned $ly near the new year. a few weeks before then $ky did a firmware update that had their cherished clients nearly rioting on a $ly thread !

$ly had just reversed the update as I left.
Did $ly ever reverse the reversal ?

Did they issue you with a campaign script for that issue as well ?

David
SWIZZ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2009, 23:17
hillel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 207
I abandoned $ly near the new year. a few weeks before then $ky did a firmware update that had their cherished clients nearly rioting on a $ly thread !

$ly had just reversed the update as I left.
Did $ly ever reverse the reversal ?

Did they issue you with a campaign script for that issue as well ?

David
No - but maybe they'll give me another full year at half price.

Seriously, I think the Freesat Service is excellent. It gives a range of channels that are not broadcast by Sky in the republic. I would like to leave Sky altogether. However I won't do this until:
1. The Irish Terrestrial Channels are available FTA on a digital network. (Most likely sometime next year.)
2. The major issues with the Humax are fixed.
hillel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2009, 08:38
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
Don't know about you. I'm just passing a little bit of time while waiting for a Humax firmware update.
They don't seem to be in any hurry, do they?
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 19:18
swedish cook
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 821
To save me getting a severe tounge lashing at home - can anyone tell me how I can go about getting some of the pay channels on my Foxsat HD
It is possible (we can debate likelihood) that the iplayer update will generate some pay TV availability. Humax have confirmed that the box will not be limited to streaming just from iplayer and I'm sure I saw a quote from Freesat someplace saying paytv streamed content was not out of question.

The startup and running cost of such an operation could be really low*, rights negotiations willing - video/sport on demand service on this model is surely possible, unfortunately if the HDR is unable to buffer the stream (we are told not) then the quality for most people will be low also.

* You don't need much more than a good webserver, internet connection and oh yes some content !
swedish cook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 21:21
srhill
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Crawley, W Sussex
Posts: 5,556
As said, you can't.

Just point out that the value of pay channels from Sky is pretty appalling and only losers (or those who cannot get out and about for some reason) need more than you can get from Freesat/Freeview. Plus, the money saved can be used for something much better than Sky's channels of repeats and cheap imports.
Maybe it is only HD wannabees that can't afford sky go for freesat -

How anyone spends their hard earned is down to them - don't diss them for making a choice you don't like

Any sports fan will see sky is a must - cos there is little sport on freesat
srhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 23:09
chn68b
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 10
That's your personal and heavily biased opinion, it's a shame you're so unconfident in your views as to feel you have to attack anyone who subscribes to Sky - calling them 'losers'.

I happily subscribe to Sky, and watch high quality TV not available elsewhere - most of which is on Sky subscription channels.
He's right about the poor value though.

That high quality TV would be available to more people if Sky didn't overspend to ensure that they get a monopoly too. They pay overinflated prices to ensure that these channels are available to nobody else, killing off the competion before it even starts. They're moving across europe now, like a swarm of locusts.
chn68b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 23:17
chn68b
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 10
Any sports fan will see sky is a must - cos there is little sport on freesat
And who's fault it that? That's how the monopoly works.

I remember a couple of years ago when I finally cancelled it I had several calls from Sky to get me back. When I pointed out that I cancelled because IMO it is poor value and the price keeps increasing above inflation, the advisor told me this was because it had just spent X amount of millions/billions on the EPL....However hard I tried he could not understand that they chose to pay that amount, not me, and they chose to put in that severely inflated bid to ensure that someone else didn't get it. This is what Sky does. It has far more bargaining power than anyone else, it pays way over the odds for all services to ensure that the likes of the BBC, TopUp TV, Freesat and Virgin don't even have a chance. Sky then justs puts that cost directly on to you the customer.
chn68b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 09:16
froxfieldrover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 253
He's right about the poor value though.

That high quality TV would be available to more people if Sky didn't overspend to ensure that they get a monopoly too. They pay overinflated prices to ensure that these channels are available to nobody else, killing off the competion before it even starts. They're moving across europe now, like a swarm of locusts.
Absolutely Spot on!

To my mind £ky are doing their utmost to destroy Freesat at birth - what with all the offers they have at the moment. They effectively did the same with Tivo.

Patrick
froxfieldrover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 09:45
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
To my mind £ky are doing their utmost to destroy Freesat at birth - what with all the offers they have at the moment. They effectively did the same with Tivo.
I doubt they'll succeed.

Freesat is for people who have the intelligence to see through Sky's monopolistic pricing policies. (And aren't sport fanatics.)
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 09:52
suffolktoon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sunny Suffolk by the Sea
Posts: 1,440
And who's fault it that? That's how the monopoly works.

I remember a couple of years ago when I finally cancelled it I had several calls from Sky to get me back. When I pointed out that I cancelled because IMO it is poor value and the price keeps increasing above inflation, the advisor told me this was because it had just spent X amount of millions/billions on the EPL....However hard I tried he could not understand that they chose to pay that amount, not me, and they chose to put in that severely inflated bid to ensure that someone else didn't get it. This is what Sky does. It has far more bargaining power than anyone else, it pays way over the odds for all services to ensure that the likes of the BBC, TopUp TV, Freesat and Virgin don't even have a chance. Sky then justs puts that cost directly on to you the customer.
I wish I could construct arguments like that What you have written would have taken me about four times as long to construct.

I believe that when Sky first started it was free. I know when I first dabbled it wasn't a lot of money, probably the equivalent to the licence fee. Year on year it has become more and more expensive. Each increase has been accompanied by the inclusion of "an exciting new channel" that you watch for 10 minutes and thereafter skip through when you desperately look for something of interest to watch. I'd have much preferred if these new channels were not included and that the price remained the same. This couldn't happen as the new channels were merely a cloak to ramp up the cost to pay for a strategy where they overbid for a sport simply to keep it away from the opposition.

Perhaps the government could put a cap on how much a pay TV operator can charge the customer for service to bring back some realism into the market, e.g. a max of three times the licence fee. Either that or make more sporting events "crown jewels". The good old days when you could sit back and watch a game of cricket without being bombarded with intrusive adverts every over are a distant and much missed memory.
suffolktoon is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:20.