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

you can't

The only way is to sell it and get Sky

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.

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."

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.

It's my opinion.

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


There is no such word as 'unconfident'.

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


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.


So why are you lurking in a 'Freesat' forum and jumping into threads to promote Sky? Are you a paid shill?

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.

mmm.Oh dear, it looks to me like it's the tongue lashing for you! Good luck.

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.

Yes, Sky is expensive. However, if it was such poor value so many of us wouldn't be customers.:yawn:


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


Why not discuss something you are better informed about?

Some people really are wedded to their TV's and watch them for hours a day so they so really do need extra soma.


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.


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.

handbags (or is that Freesat/Sky remotes) at the ready - round 2

it gets worse than this sometimes. We need that handbagicon

Or maybe, we just like the choice.


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

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.

They don't seem to be in any hurry, do they?

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 !

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

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.