|
||||||||
The joy of the Humax and finger up to sky |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 111
|
The joy of the Humax and finger up to sky
Now my humax foxsat is up and working with a quad lnb, I have my digifusion twin drive freeview in line also + freeview built into the TV (panasonic 37" plasma what a tv for the price)
So plenty of recording capacity, if the roof top aerial falls down I have satelite, if the weather gets bad I have freeview and if all else fails I have a 60cm dish at the back of the house that feeds two Fortec Star boxes. All of this without a single subscription ![]() Many years ago when sky was launched and the lads at work were flooding to sign up I was the only one who kicked against not being able to watch many of the sports progs without paying for them and told the rest that they were making a rod for their own backs, which they did. Since then even the most die hard sky users get a serious look on their face when sky is talked about. So why do we love to hate sky then? Now the worrying thing is, if as is happening at the moment thousands of users are switching to freesat as they realise that most of what they want to watch is available plus in these slump times everyone is looking to scale down the cost. Q. if sky gets hit that hard that there future is risky, how could it affect us on freesat and others that use the same satelites. Lets take a the worse look, suppose sky was forced to stop trading, how would that loss of revenue affect the sat providers? would we ever see a time when there wasn`t enough funds to run the bird without sky? and would then we be asked to contribute? or would there be enough in our licence fee to keep things going? Anything is poss in these times, I mean! did we ever think that our high streets would see the loss of Woolworths? Dave |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
I don't think the number of DSat channels whose transmission costs are paid by Sky is that large a proportion that it would cause a problem.
I don't think there's any likelyhood of Sky collapsing in the forseeable future anyway. Although a lot of people are getting rid of it now there is so much available free it's surprisng how many people are prepared to continue to fork out quite large sums of money because their children need wall to wall cartoons or their wife is an ardent fan of some import shown uniquely on Sky. Plus, of course, there are the football fans who Sky has by the short and curlies. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Here, at my desk
Posts: 813
|
I haven't had sky for about 8 years, never miss it. I only watched it for odd movie anyway
I can get all I want on freeview/freesat and playing movies on DVD player. I also play some HD content on pc connected to main TV What I do hope for is more HD content from BBC, ITV and hopefully C4 but it inst looking hopefully as yet that c4 will joining freesat for time being |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
I don't think there's much danger to Sky, at the worst they'd probably have to scale back their operations. At the best they'll stay as they are, if they did go bust, they'd probably do Freesat a favour - all that extra bandwidth and with a 1/2 empty satelite, I bet Astra might look to a price cut on bandwidth to fill it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,016
|
I am paying circa £65 per month with Sky simply to watch an occassional game of football. It's ridiculous really, but as I can't get Premiership football many places else (& Setanta is rubbish) I have to swallow it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,774
|
Quote:
I am paying circa £65 per month with Sky simply to watch an occassional game of football. It's ridiculous really, but as I can't get Premiership football many places else (& Setanta is rubbish) I have to swallow it.
It's ludicrous to complain you're paying too much if you're paying for loads of stuff you don't watch. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,946
|
1 mix + sport is £35.50 ... ![]() Quote:
I am paying circa £65 per month with Sky simply to watch an occassional game of football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,016
|
Quote:
1 mix + sport is £35.50 ...
![]() I agree I should can the rest though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,556
|
Quote:
I am paying circa £65 per month with Sky simply to watch an occassional game of football. It's ridiculous really, but as I can't get Premiership football many places else (& Setanta is rubbish) I have to swallow it.
The only way Id consider sky is if they offered a sports only package for under £20. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35.



