Think I signed up about 1999/2000. Think the full package was £26/month then. I'd say it's gone up in real terms over the last 14/15 years.

I posted this last September:

My parents keep all there bank statements so just for interest ive gone back through the last 20 years at what they have paid to Sky.

Parents went Digital in November 1998 and have had all the normal channels eg ( Variety pack, six mix)


1994 £6.98
1995 £9.99
1996 £10.99
1997-2001 £11.99
2002 £16.00
2003 £18.50
2004-2005 £19.50
2006-2008 £21.00
2008-2009 £22.00 then £21.50 vat decrease
2010-2011 £23.50 to £24.00 Vat increase back to 17.5% then to 20%
2011-2012 £24.00 price freeze
2012-2013 £25.50
2013-2014 £27.00 with September £1.50 increase
2014-2015 ?

Interesting calculation. Without allowing for the small change in VAT, £6.98 in 1994 would be £12.12 today. However, as to how comparable the range of channels and otherfacilities today eg catch-up, recording space is up to everyone to determine for themselves.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...nged-1900.html

£27 in 1994 adjusted for inflation is £15. Since then we have switched to digital and there as been many channel launches, the range of content available is much much higher, so since 1994 the price has gone up around £10.

Interesting calculator. Have just had a play around. Amazing how things have gone up since the early 1900's. Like £11,148 in 1900 being worth £1million now

I think the frustration comes because Sky are a monopoly so the choice is take it or leave it. If you don't like Sainsbury you can go to Tesco and vice-versa but with Sky you can't do that.

Just been chatting to a sky advisor on sky chat now I take anything these advisor say with a pinch of salt , but according to them:

Original bundle £21.50
Variety £28
Family £33
Sports £23
Movies £18
Broadband £8.50

Note these may be incorrect as sky chat is notorious for incorrect information !

not always the case.
in my town the only choice is Tesco.

however, sky is a luxury item, food is not.

Unfortunately, that is down to regulation, not Sky.

If things like movie rights/sports rights/tv rights were not allowed to be sold on an exclusive base, then it might be different, then again, if that was the case, the companies making such programs would probably make less, as no one would be paying billions for exclusive rights, so would the product be as good?

Well, it depends on the food really.

How are they allowed to get away with this?

What annoys me is id gladly ditch them but then they go and make exclusive GOLD stuff so I have to buy.

What is everyone's problem? - and why does someone post the same stupid thread every year?.

Sky increase their prices every September (with ONE noticeable exception), and VM increase their prices every April (with no exceptions).

Costs go up, Sky are affected by inflation just like everyone else, so they increase their prices (as do VM), such increases are fairly heavily restricted though.

If you don't think it's good value for money, then cancel - don't whinge about it

Sky's package prices did increase in that year you're referring to have not to.

I can't say I remember them increasing, and there were lot's of threads here about them not doing so - perhaps you have a peculiar package that resulted in an increase?, but it wasn't common for most.

Get away with what? A private company putting prices up for a service that you have a choice of whether to take it or not?

If you are that incensed, then why not cancel?

GOLD is not owned by Sky, so they have no say about that channel. You may receive that channel on SKY, VM, BT TV or TALK TALK TV, so you have a choice of where to purchase this channel from.

They only increased the package prices for NEW subscribers who joined after August 31st 2011, any existing subscribers had a price freeze.

So while technically, yes, they put the price up, they didn't increase the price for any existing subscriber, and any new subscriber joined at the new rate, so also didn't see a price increase, so no customer actually saw a price increase on what they were already paying.

Also there was the VAT rise at the beginning of 2011, which I believe is the year of the price freeze, then that cannot really be regarded as Sky putting the prices up, that was the government putting the VAT rate up.

I'm surprised you as a Sky salesman don't know this happened. The basic pack price increased from £19.50 to £20 and the upper tier basic pack increased from £24.50 to £25. So you were factually wrong when you said there was 'ONE noticeable exception' in Sky's yearly price rises. Sky's line rental also increased by £1 in the same year.

As above.

EDIT: Noticed you'd completely changed your post after I'd replied. I took everything you've put in your edited post into consideration before making my "sweeping statement". So technically there was nothing wrong in my original statement.

Actually, I edited my post BEFORE you replied, because your first reply to Nigel wasn't showing after I edited it, mine was still the last post.

Then again, I stand by what I said, if you knew the prices had gone up, rather than just saying "they did", why didn't you back it up in the first place, rather than try and cause friction?

I had two windows up so I was replying separately and didn't know you had edited it.

I had no reason to back it up, there was nothing in my original response which made it look like I was lying about anything as your pre-edited post was implying. The only person causing friction is yourself as is evident in a lot of your posts in this forum.

Pretty sure VM have increased their prices twice in a year on more than one occasion....

April increase for VM services then another later in the year for Sky products, presumably when Sky's price increases in September......

February* - but normally the highest price increase comes from the Sky Premium Channels wholesale price rising in September which Virgin Media take the brunt of for a few months.

Do not see what any of my other posts have to do with it, and secondly, why can't people read the threads, why do they have to read the usernames and post based on who they are, i don't, i give the same response to everyone, and half the time, don't even look to see why said it, as to me, it has no bearing.

I don't know why you've turned this into a soap drama. The point is I posted a fact, yes it was sweeping but it was correct. The statement from Nigel that I was responding to was also sweeping but you had no problem with that to ask for him to back it up. The consistency in your responses that you speak of wasn't present there.

I didn't need to ask Nigel to backup his statement, as the reason was already mentioned earlier today, post 53:


I just don't see the point of someone going into a forum and just saying "you are wrong", and knowing the reasons why they think this person is wrong, but then not giving them.