So long as you realise each month when you look at your wage packet and compare it to the wage packet of a premiership footballer just who it is that's bankrolling them.

Tell me how does that feel?

Fortunately for me that dos'nt bother me, as I've got plenty of money to pay for my Sky subscription.
Ian.

Yea and I'd wager $ky and the likes of Rooney and Co have a great deal more, but hey you're a wise adult right?

I can usually recognize a non argument or weak argument when people start converting high annual or monthly costs into weekly or daily costs... what next? "Only £2.42 a day"?

It's the Sky subscription model I disapprove of though, the high bar to Sports entry (£21.50 + Sports) and that needs to change. Now TV is a start.

That's very constructive, spelling Sky the way you have. Not worth responding to!!
Ian.

That's because Sky now include Now TV subscribers in their numbers, is it not? Now TV is not the Sky model of subscription TV from which they've made their fortune, the number of 'classic' subscribers may well be falling and last week's deal gives them no wriggle room to change that.

Do they? - have you any evidence for that?.

BT TV starts at £5 , VM have lower TV packages costing similar , all these customers are included in subscriber numbers. The movie pass on Now TV costs £9.99 and the Entertainment pack costs £6.99.

Sky said in a recent results presentation that 1 in 5 Now TV subscribers now took both monthly passes , there's probably also an element of those who also buy the occasional sports passes.

Whilst clearly these pay less than a satellite subscriber they are paying subscribers , Sky has also sold Now TV packages with its phone/BB offerings and the Now TV box has the Sky Store available which brings in extra revenue.

You and all your friends are going to save Sky, are you? That's very admirable of you all

It may have been said numerous times over the years that subscription TV is dead, but never has it been closer to the truth than today. Just see how much your Sky sub goes up over the next few years, and how many people ditch the company as soon as their contracts allow them.

Sky TV HAVE to raise prices significantly to try and recoup some of the Premier League money. But last I saw, the general public aren't getting any richer, and they will vote with their wallets. Mark my words, Sky have boobed dramatically by overspending and they are now in a no-win situation: lower prices and go out of business, or raise them at a record rate, watch millions leave, and end up having to close shop in a few years anyway.

The future is Netflix, Amazon, Google Play. Sky still have the ridiculous notion that providing top flight football to a relatively small (and increasingly poorer) audience at an overblown price somehow means they can sustain their outdated pay TV model into the near future.

A number of my work colleagues often complain they have hundreds of channels yet their most watched programmes are on terrestrial.

When I ask them why they don't do something about it the most frequent answer is apathy, simply can't be bothered to make a change.

However, a number of them are now saying enough is enough and are opting for Freeview or Freesat. What they are saving is paying their utility bill.

I'm damn sure the financial boffins at Sky are far more knowledgeable than yourself, do you really think Sky are that niave they would jepodise their bussiness in such a way, I think not.

The increase in September will be very close to the usual £2.50 for sports and 50p and £1 elsewhere. Feel free to quote me when the time comes.

As for Sky going out of business, that's just wishful thinking on your part - Sky is Europes leading investor of TV after completing the acquisition of Sky Italia and a majority interest in Sky Deutschland, cost £7bn.
They are also investing in mobile tech to become quad play providers, they have just made a huge investment in to video streaming company Elemental Technologies. Sky also opened a Silicon Valley office in an effort to stay on top of new technology. Among other investments has taken multimillion-dollar stakes in Whistle Sports, a YouTube sports network, the virtual reality specialist Jaunt and Roku, the hardware designer behind the Now TV set-top box, not to mention the service revamp and new hardware planned for 2016 - Sky really look to be heading for administration, not.

It's been well known for a year or two, when they changed their reporting methodology. The latest mention of this I can google is as follows in December last year, there are plenty of others. They are making life difficult for analysts!


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...cks-force.html

and in April :


http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ion-bt-netflix

Now... TV, but not as we know it! If I sign up to Now TV, as I probably will soon to catch an occasional F1 race at £7 every month or two, I would not consider myself as returning to the Sky TV fold and I will most definitely be far less profitable to Sky than as a satellite TV subscriber, in line with, I suspect, most Now TV subscribers.

The other issue they have obfuscated is, how many subscribers would they they count me as if I were to retain their basic TV package say for Entertainment/Kids, and then sign up to Now TV for an occasional £7 sporting event? Two? Or one, as it should be unless they separate them out. Answers on a postcard.

Yes, all that spending, it's never ever blown up in a company's face, has it?

All very well reeling off Sky's recent acquisitions and achievements, but what have they done for their own customers lately? It will be a simple case of dwindling subscribers that will be the downfall of Sky, whether they "stay on top of new technology" or merge with European divisions or whatever.

Sky customers are getting a bum deal and more and more are realising it and leaving. That's what will kill of their pay TV business. I'm not saying Sky couldn't survive in other areas, but unless they rethink their outdated, restrictive and expensive pay TV model soon, that part of the empire is going to burn.

I love how you matter of factly state Sky Tv's annual price rises, like its not only inevitable but essential! What date do Sky have to pay the Premier League for what was agreed for the 2016-19 deal? Be interesting to see what "coincidentally" goes up in cost soon after...

Its a shame the sports package can't bare most of the brunt as that is essentially the biggest payout and proportion it like that.
Also if the sports pack was baring the cost of the sports on its own they could make it so you could get that with its HD part only with just the basic package.
This would mean that sky could bring the prices of the entertainment packs down in SD and HD.

I love how you quote Sky's price rises like the rest hold there's each year.

My Infinity 2 has gone from £26 to £27.65 , my line rental saver has increased if I decide to go down that option if not the standard line rental has also increased.

BT are now offering Infinity 2 at £20 to new customers , didn't BT also increase the cost of its TV package also ?

Free BT Sport don't make me laugh.

Edit
Just come checked and BT Line rental saver is £169.90 now equivalent to £14.15 a month , last time it worked to £11.75 an increase of £2.40 a month.

£2.40 added to my £1.65 BB increase totals £4.05 a month of a rise for two services.

If you care to got back to my OP you will note I do not single out Sky but state 'subscription TV' doh!

You quote telephone line rental and again I am talking pay TV. I can only conclude you cannot truthfully defend your position so are seeking to muddy the waters, what next, price of bread?

Perhaps you are a fan of what I tend to call 'dross TV' if you are then perhaps 'subscription TV' is for you. However, as said previously there is a plethora of good programming on FTA, more that we can watch. If that is more your thing then why you would pay subscription fees is a mystery.

You may have not singled out Sky on your OP, but mupperman11 was responding to a particular post from Jimmy_Barnes singling out Sky price rises, so is surely allowed to respond to him?

I wasn't quoting you.

I was quoting somebody else never mentioned you once , however as you very well know these days line rental and BB charges regularly receive increases which I'm sure is a result of increased TV expenses in my opinion.

I earn the money so I guess its my decision how I spend it but thanks for the advice.

The BT TV package I'm on did recently go up, from £7 to £7.45. A whopping forty five pence increase

Actually it was a bigger increase for me as Id got a six month discount on Entertainment, so up until January it was only costing me £5. Now it's £7.45, and I pay a further £3 for HD, which I can cancel at any point if I wish.

£10.45 a month is pretty sweet, I get a good range of entertainment channels, free sports, some exceptional HD offerings, and a second-to-none PVR/on demand service. The only way Sky can beat that is offering the Now TV Entertainment pass, which of course is not HD, has no record function, and limited catch up options.

I wondered when the "BT charge the earth for line rental" line would be wheeled out. Bear in mind this is a discussion about subscription TV, not telephony/line rental.

i think people forget Sky started why back in 1982

Investment spending.

You are repeating nothing different to what was said two seasons ago when bidding reached a record £3.3bn, up 70% - and that was just for seasons 2013/14 and 2015/16. Sky are still here and probably a little stronger.

I doubt there will be much difference in the annual price rise to other years.

So if Sky are going down what about VM, are they on their way out as well, because their service is very similar to Sky's, with prices being more expensive in some areas.

I don't recall wheeling it out at all , the main providers all offer similar line rental costs in fact BT offer a line rental saver something Sky no longer do my point was that they all increase charges.

If line rental and BB increases don't relate at all to the pay TV business how do you suppose they make the extra money required for BT Sport with Sky subscribers who receive BT Sport inclusive with their BT BB connection ?

Are you suggesting the 45p increase on its TV package a base of around a million is enough to cover all the extra rights acquired of late ?

My increases are £4.05 so far no doubt if I want it the champions league will be an extra.

I do ring every 12 months to see what offers are available.

I'm sure the Murdoch family, Rooney and all his ilk will be eternally grateful as they live their lavish lifestyles.

I'm sure they will and they're welcome

Virgin haven't splurged billions of pounds so that footballers can continue to be overpaid for another three years. They have recently announced a £3 billion investment to increase their own network, which is at least forward thinking of them, but perhaps too little too late for them to seriously be considered a nationwide alternative to Sky.


I didn't say that line rental and broadband costs aren't relevant to BT's TV costs and plans, but the original topic was about the decline of subscription TV. If we must fixate on it though: yes of course BT Sport is subsidised by its LR and BB. And if the day came that BT had to start charging customers for the sports channels, I would look at the cost and make a decision whether it'd be worth me having them.

Right now, I pay £10.45 a month for a good range of entertainment, sports and HD. Sky TV customers on the lowest package pay more than double that, and don't receive any sport or HD for that. It all boils down to simple mathematics! Sky are poor value, and until they start to offer people a better and cheaper way to watch pay TV instead of obsessing over football, they are going to struggle.