Wasn't this the result Sky's new package reshuffle when they introduced entertainment and entertainment+ packs, it was not a direct price increase?

Looking back at some old threads it does look like customers who signed up before 31st August 2011 had their prices frozen for a year, the packs they had were automatically transferred to the new packs - anyone signing after 31st August 2011 paid the new price of £20/£25.

I know we benefited as we were on full package/multi room, our subs were frozen plus the HD sub was removed from the multi room subscription.

I remember it causing some confusion.

According to moneysavingexpert,com Sky themselves have said price hikes are averaging 2.5% so in theory:
Variety £27 changes to £27.68
Family £32 changes to £32.80
sports £22 changes to £22.55
movies £16 changes to £16.40
no change to sky broadband

so im predicting 50p increases to variety, sports, movies and a £1 increase to the Family bundle.

information from here http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...-10-price-hike

So why originally bother asking me to back it up if you knew what I said wasn't wrong? It seems you're making this personal and only have a problem with the way I posted, even though there was nothing wrong said by me. Pot. Kettle. Black? Maybe you should review your own post before passing judgement.

If I'm not wrong, Nigel is a longserving Sky ASA and I would have expected him to know that there has always been a price rise before making such a statement. He seems clued up about most things Sky (and VM too just by reading the posts in the cable forum!). If he had a problem with what I wrote he would've replied by now. I don't see why you have to fight his battles.

There was still a price rise to Sky's package prices which is the point I'm making. 6 pack/mix cost £24.50 and the new equivalent Entertainment Extra was priced at £25 at the point of the price freeze.

Why shouldn't people whinge? That's part of what this forum is for.

So just over a tenner a month in the 90's, for the analogue service with about 30-40 channels and little else.

Now £27 for a high definition digital service with hundreds of channels, Sky+ and On Demand.

For me the vastly better value is in the here and now, and will still comfortably be whatever rise comes our way in September.

I didn't know what you said was right, thus my original comment asking you to back it up (which I personally feel you should have done in your original post).

Afterwards, I decided to check out some old posts and news stories, google is good for that, that's when I found out about the price freeze for existing customers, but a higher price for new customers, thus I edited my post with the updated information.

Had you said that in the first place, I wouldn't have needed to do all that.

This is a public forum, so I don't need to wait for someone else to complain before making a post, I am entitled to do so, as for making it personal, it was you who brought up posting history, not me!

My only point has always been, if someone wants to make a post making out someone is wrong, it would help if they gave the reasons, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes Google is good, maybe you should have used it before automatically insinuating that I was wrong in your original post? I've never made this personal, it was you who suggested I was causing friction when it was only you, and to date, who has been riled up by my post! Indeed this is a public forum but then I'm not the one pseudo-moderating posts even if there's nothing technically wrong with them.

I merely responded to a one-line wrong assertion with a similar one-line but correction. Whether or not it affected existing customers was irrelevant as there was an increase in Sky's base products and the new prices then applied to existing customers making any changes. As for your last point what you claim I did was no different to what you originally did in your first response to me.

Anyway, this is now verging on the ridiculous so I gracefully back out.

As will I, been nice chatting though, forum would be boring without debate and differing opinions.

It's high time every channel had it's price
so you only pay what you want to subscribe too
rather having bundles.

so true but will never happen.

So you're commenting on a thread about Sky's pricing, saying a system that would cost far more should be adopted?

But it would only cost more if you subscribed to more. Those who only wanted a couple of program's wouldn't be subsidising those who want everything.

do you get charged when you walk in to any shop in the UK, No You just walk in and buy what you want , and don't get charged for every thing on the shelves that are in the shop. But with Sky you have to pay for things you don't want just to get what you do.If you pay the full price to Sky you know you are paying for all the discounts that Sky offer.

the truth hurts so many people in this fourm

so tell me this, seeing as you're the BT champion here.
how do i get just ESPN on it's own from BT?
i need to get the other BT channels that i might not want.

so you only want to pay for what you view your just like me BT are just like Sky they offer something for something else, I am lucky my employer pays "not BT" for my phone line as I work from home, so the small amount of football I get for free is enough for me and as I have said before I use my brothers ID for Sky go to get a few more

Like the TV Licence then, I don't want to watch the BBC or have access to their website, Iplayer or radio stations, I only want to watch live tv, but I have to pay a premium for that for things I don't want and fund everyone else's enjoyment of the BBC. At least with Sky/Virgin/BT I have the choice if I want to subscribe or not.

TV Licence is required by law to watch BBC1 BBC2 BBC3 BBC4 ITV C4 C5 virgin BT SKY so what is your point .you might have a choice with Sky/Virgin/BT but to watch them you still need a TV Licence

The point is the TV licence is only required to watch live tv, but the majority of the money goes to the BBC, basically the BBC is funded by the LF, the other broadcasters are not. I am quite prepared to have the LF but pay less because I don't want the BBC services I only want to watch live tv, guess what I don't have that choice

I have gone for the sky two years broadband, great deal
I have up to sports, like quite a varied amount of sport, but not that bothered about the european league football
I looked back on my bank accounts and I'm paying less now than than I was in 2009 and even if the prices go up a few percent, still will be cheaper than it was then, just
With the freeze year we had, the deals most of us managed to get last year, very happy lady here

I do have a second home I rent out as a holiday home that has bt, so bt sport comes free to me and I use it with app at home to watch the sport

Still prefer sky though, their customer support is great and easy to get hold of, whereas bt broadband is up and down quite often and in same street as my home and their support is just abysmal everytime and hanging on phone for them to answer
Will probably move away from bt when contract is finished and shame have to forego bt sport, but that is a at least a year away yet
At time it looked a good del and di not really want full sky tv there, just broadband and a easy to use tv recorder package and bt youview offered that at the time with the bt sport bonus and bt
Should have learnt lesson as many locals tell me bt is poor and as a long term sky customer used to good service and all the wonderful extras, no brainer really

Bt has gone up quite a lot more recently and have lost quite a few services, like voicemail, caller display
So this price increase will not really be seen by me as any problem

If you paid per channel, firstly, it would probably cost much more to have all the channels, even if it was 50p a channel, that's only 40 channels, and you are upto £20 already.

So how do you set the price, and what would happen to the less watched channels, they wouldn't exist, as not enough people would subscribe to them to keep them going, with the current system, they can, you might think they are rubbish, but others might think the channels you watch are rubbish, and wouldn't subscribe to them either.

Then, some channels might want to sell direct, rather than through Sky, so you would have a logistical nightmare.

Whilst pay-per-channel is perhaps an unreachable nirvana. There is scope to improve the available bundles - a complaint I note every year around the price increase.

Sports channels Eurosport and At the Races should come with the Sports bundle.

Also, assuming benwarwick's information is correct, for those who like documentaries it is getting even more expensive, as the difference between the Original bundle (no change) and the Variety and Family bundles (50p and £1) increases.

All this is very annoying for those (like me) who have never watched a kids or music channel.

why?
maybe eurosport don't want to be part of the sky pack and are quite happy being included in the main channel pack.

strange why someone would advocate putting a channel behind an extra pay-wall, when everyone always shouts about having to pay extra for something.

Clue is in the name Sports bundle i.e. a bundle of (all available) sports channels.

No idea who, channel owner or service provider, decides which bundle a channel should be in. As Sky part own At the Races, they must have some power.

For comparison; Virgin include Eurosport in their M+ bundle, At the Races in their M bundle, and Extreme Sports (which I forgot in the original post) in their L bundle: http://store.virginmedia.com/discove...tch/sport.html

Unclear what is meant by extra pay-wall. If Eurosport, At the Races and Extreme Sports were part of the Sports bundle, Sky customers would receive the channels without paying to receive the extra channels in the Variety or Family bundles. They could just get the Original bundle with the Sports bundle. Clear, simpler and cheaper.