Options
Hear we go again 10% price hike
Cnet is reporting that BSkyB is going to increase subscription prices by 10% from 1st September this is after an 18% increase on their telephone line rental back in December. I would think SKY are going to need to take on some extra staff to handle the cancellation calls as the prices are now getting ridiculous for a load of repeated TV.
0
Comments
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1834022
Secondly, they have only announced that there will be price increases, which can be upto 10%, not that they will be 10% for everyone.
Here we go again??? Hasn't been an increase for 2 years pal!
With all the repeats american crap whats the latest swamp rats.And more adverts than tv.Once every five year would be too soon m8.
Afraid they are going to shoot themselves in the foot this time with BT giving away football let the games begin.
Would you not call a 18% increase in line rental not a price rise?
Got to love sky they know how to take people for mugs, just saw today that you need to take entertainment extra + to watch box sets which are available for free on 4od how the hell do they get away with it .
For example the inbetweeners all 3 series are available on 4od on my you view box but on sky I would need to upgrade to the + package to watch it! Day light robbery if you ask me.
if you read it correctly it says UP to 10%
i doubt the rise will be more than 2 or 3% or maybe less while money is still so tight for most of the country and i doubt sky will put the prices up so high that people wont be able to afford it
Most likely they are assessing their market share and churn rate and will modify the price rises to suit. I wouldn't be surprised to the increases for certain products creep up towards the higher end of 10% (sports to £23).
Sports £23 football on bt free = a disaster ready to happen for sky.
and the 10 million customers are going to give up 116 games on sky for the 38 you get on BT
actually BT sport have 38 games and sky have 116 so if you say 38 games for 12£ (BT price) 116 games would be £36 at them prices sky are charging 21£ which means 38 free games on sky sports.
then you actually got the fact that sky charge 7.50 (BB) and 14.50 Line rental) (£22.00) for broadband and BT charge 15.50 (Line) and 16 (BB) (£31.50) which means it is ONLY 2.50 more expensive to have sky BB then if we add fee calls you get on sky and not BT to are looking at a 50p saving for a THIRD of the live matches on sky
plus a sky are giving BB free so is its at MINIMUM £5 CHEAPER than BT or £7 with calls.
I do WISH people would STOP COMPARING 116 SKY games with the 38 BT games as if you get 116 games free on BT which quite clearly you DONT.
Don't forget all the new home grown programs, like Trollied, Starlings, Moon Boy, Mad Dogs, Mount Pleasant, to name just a few, new release movies, live sport, none of that is repeats, also, a 42 minute USA program airs on an hour slot, so that leaves 18 minutes for adverts, so how does that make more adverts than programs? Unless you are counting each individual advert of course, but that is the case for EVERY channel :rolleyes:
Except, unless I'm mistaken BT have the same live match package as ESPN has had. Now I had ESPN for a 3 month offer period, and in that time, the number of interesting matches numbered 3, and would've been 2 except my team was involved in a cup replay.
So, even though to some people the BT coverage is free, I personally don't think it's enough to entice people over and to dump Sky Sports. Afterall, you could've had ESPN and before it Setanta for £10 a month and no need to keep basic Sky package, but there wasn't a massive desertion.
However, when the next live packages are auctioned and if BT wins a more prestigious package, then yes, you may see more transfers.
I think all that will happen is that those people with BT broadband will say thank you very much but still keep their Sky subscription. Those people who subscribed to both Sky and ESPN will keep subscribing to both, and those people, like me, who don't want 2 subscriptions will stick with SKy because you get so much more coverage. Plus of course the other sports (I love my golf).
Although BT only has 38 games, they have secured the rights to 18 First Pick games, so that adds a little more interest into the mix, or, to us subscribers, you have to have both subscriptions now for all the top games, whereas you only really needed Sky in the past.
Exactly - as always so called 'competition' puts prices UP, not down.
Competition works if there are several providers offering the same products. eg. supermarkets, where they all sell the same products and are constantly trying to undercut each other to be the cheapest. We haven't got a market like that in Pay TV; although with Sky now offering free broadband to Sports customers, BT's presence has made a positive difference.
Real competition would be if all EPL games (say) were available on Sky Sports and BT Sport, so you could just choose between them on price and coverage standard.
The present system stops one company having a monopoly on everything, but results in those who want to see everything having to subscribe to more than one company!
Sky have got MORE first pick games so it is not as if you would pay half of the price of sky sports to have 78 games and no extra first pick ones
I totally aggree and as it is greedy BT who are the competition they are charging half the sky sports price for 2 channels with a small selection of sports that sky are charging for 4. I am sure you wouldnt go in a pub and pay 15£ for 5 pints when you could go next door and get 15 pints for £20 next door
Although as the games are not the same, nor would the pints be in this analogy, it could be Stella in 1, Calibre in the other, or lager in 1, mild in the other.
yes sky have the stella and bt the carling but every bt customer thinks bt having 38 games for 12£ RRP is better than sky having 116 for 23£ plus 4 other channels of sport some of the sport people would say not to everyones tastes but the people who watch them enjoy them. (darts speedway to name 2 that wouldn't survive without sky coverage). and bt broadband was limited at 16£ and finally they have been forced to give customers a better deal by paying millions for a sports channel just to get customers. they could of just lowered their prices like all the wholesale customers of their have done
First of all pal. I ain't no mug coz I don't pay for TV. Second of all if you don't like the price then here's that word again. CHOICE!
I mean how dare they charge for what they provide you?
And before sky you only needed two channels to get all the Football available FREE, then sky came along and you had to PAY, Now someone else has come along and you have to pay again, That's the future with Pay TV, competion is good otherwise you would have to PAY sky even more in the future, this way they cannot charge too much more, or people will leave sky and go somewhere else
"All" the football?
How many fuul, live games could one watch "back in the day".
I have memories of watching football constantly at the weekends but in reality I was at a live match most weekends and therefore must only have been watching highlights.
I agree that competition is good but only if it's true competition.
What we have here isn't true competition. We have two companies with two similar but different products showing different things.
For a sports fan, their only choice is to subscribe to both. For example, someone who is football mad isn't going to ditch Sky in favour of BT just because BT have 38 games.
The only thing the current setup does is push up prices. Providers have to bid big to secure rights and in turn have to charge more to make their money back.
Allowing two providers to show the same games or events on their own channels would create true competition because people would then truly have a choice and providers would be forced to compete on price, not just content, thus bringing benefits to the consumer.
Of course, with such a system you then get into the whole price fixing scandals that always seem to crop up.
Can't see how you had the choice you do now with only two channels, you either had to go see your top tier team live or watch highlights, technology now allows you to pick the match of your choice via the red button.
You now have the largest array of sports ever, something that was very limited in the past before multichannel TV. It has also given lesser sports greater coverage where they now receive more investment through advertisers.
Just the other day I heard someone complaining because ITV had tennis on all day, I presume it was someone who just had freeview, their main channel of choice had been taken away because of this coverage and they were stuck for something to watch. Can't please everyone.
We get it Peter, you don't like sky. But if sky hadn't brought this quality broadcasting the premier league wouldn't be the most popular league in the world. That's a fact.
Some people don't want to spend that much on sport. It might work out as better value to take Sky, but if someone just wants to see a few premiership games (as well as the other sports they have) then BT is a perfectly viable option.
To use your analogy, if I just want a couple of pints, I don't want to have to buy a whole case of beer.