Sky+ sub. What's the reaction?

[loz]

I see Sky have now announced pricing for Sky+.
And yes, it includes the dreaded extra £10 a month sub, on top of £300 for the machine.

It is not yet clear what that £10 gives you, as they have previously stated in a press release that Sky+ uses the existing EPG

What are folks reactions to this?
Obviously it seems yet more extortion by Sky, but how many of you are going to grin and bear it because you want the new technology?

[squid]

if that is the case then i for one think i shall be sticking with the box i have .

i don't mind paying for the box . i do think thought that they charge anough as is without adding an extra tenner :(

[celticprince]

I agree, it's fair enough to pay for new technology, but the extra on the subscription is a joke, compounded by the fact that many people, myself included, are still having problems due to the current EPG download. This is what happens when there is no serious competition.

[ 18-07-2001: Message edited by: celticprince ]

[Matt Horne]

As I already mentioned.. there is no way I am buying this... maybe when they repeat their programming less I will have a reason to.

What is also annoying is the £50 installation charge.. do you get new dish or something with this ?

At the end of the day if I really need to record something then I'll video it..who would believe we would have to pay £40 a month to watch and record telly on top of the damn TV license...

It will get cheaper eventually..can anyone see "Free skyplus+ box when you subscribe..."


Matt

[loz]

Originally posted by Matt Horne:
<STRONG>
What is also annoying is the £50 installation charge.. do you get new dish or something with this ?

Matt</STRONG>

Yes, you do get a new dish and 4 way LNB. Which is needed as I understand it, so you cant just pick one up and plug it into your existing dish.

loz

[StephenR]

I'm not happy about the sub, but I will probably pay it if the Sky+ box does everything Sky say it will. Maybe the £10/month will mean they can produce some bug-free software :rolleyes:

Although the first thoughts about paying a sub may be "extortion" and "what is it for?" I think it could be justified for the following reasons. Firstly, Sky+ requires the development of advanced software especially for these newer boxes. How else could they recoup these costs? Secondly, the fee is for the increased functionality you get. Okay, so you don't pay a sub for a VCR but will a VCR let you record one digital channel while you watch another? Will a VCR record in DD 5.1? And so the list goes on.

However, I will certainly be waiting to see how the box actually performs before I hand over any money. I hope HCC give Sky+ a thorough test before it's released to the general public.

[mart.stokes]

I don't know if any of you guys have ever noticed the "Nivea for men" advert on telly. The one where the two guys start off by slagging the product and the way it is being advertised and then end up saying they might buy some? Well, I bet the same thing happens with most of us and Sky plus!

I will state now that there is no bl**dy way I am paying ten quid a month, how stupid do Sky think we are to pay twice for the EPG?

Now, I bet six months down the road 90% of us will have put our hands in our pockets for it! Who will be the most guilty? ME! :rolleyes:

[fishyben]

I'd like the new box, but not for an extra £10er a month + £50 for installation ++ £300 for the box itself.
saying that, i think the last time me or my wife used our video was last year sometime and im no kidding,,,, things are repeated so often nowadays you can always catch at a later date.

[loz]

Originally posted by StephenR:
[QB]
Firstly, Sky+ requires the development of advanced software especially for these newer boxes. How else could they recoup these costs? Secondly, the fee is for the increased functionality you get. Okay, so you don't pay a sub for a VCR but will a VCR let you record one digital channel while you watch another? Will a VCR record in DD 5.1? And so the list goes on.
QB]

But you are already paying £300 for the box!
If this isnt enough why not simply charge more? At least I wouldnt be confused about what I was paying for, or suspicious that I was being forced to pay a sub for little apparent extra value (having perceived I bought all the functionality you discussed for £300).
They are not saying the sub is to allow you to record are they?
Strange though it may seem, I would have been happier paying £450 up front say, rather than have an open ended committment to pay Sky £10 for the rest of its life, no doubt increased over the years too.

And to rub salt in the wound, if the sub is for the EPG, then they are also going to have adverts in it too soon. So my £10 allows me to to be advertised to!

loz

[Dave H]

If sky think I am paying ten pounds on top of the 32(I think) pounds I am allready paying they can kiss my rear end!
what is the ten pound extra for anyway, as someone else said my panasonic box keeps crashing now all the time as it is,without having to pay another ten pounds for a more advanced epg.
They are realy trying my patience :mad:

[mart.stokes]

I am in no way supporting Sky here but I am guessing that Sky could say the £10 a month is for the ability to "access" two digital tuners from the same viewing card. They COULD (although it would be suicide) claim that we should pay a double subscription!

The question is, what functionality would be left on the box if you stopped paying the £10 a month? If you refused to pay the £10 after, say, 6 months, would they demand you installed a normal digibox? Or would they be able to downgrade the Sky plus box to normal digibox functionality.

[VintageMark]

I wouldnt have a problem with £10 a month extra..... IF they didnt charge £350 for the new box in the first place!!

£50 for box+LNB... then £10 a month... I'll take one...

Mark.

[Norman]

MJS raised a good point. If you stop paying the £10, what functionality will you loose?
They can't take back the Sky+ box because you own it, the £300 isn't a rental, it's a direct purchase.
Without subscription, I bet you will only loose the ability to schedule recordings (one of its main features I know), but its dual tuner, live pause and maybe manual recording will still be there.
I'm going to buy one from the outset and see if it can justify an extra £10 per month (doubtful) and if it can't, I'll stop paying.
My original Pace digibox is on the verge of packing up, and I'll be happy to pay £300 for the dual tuner option alone.

[General Skanky]

I won't be paying £10 extra!
It's the sub that is the problem for TIVO too.
People would buy it instead of videos but then learnt of the sting in the tail.
None of us should even try to justify the charges. We should always demand lower prices.
Trust me, they make an absolute fortune as it is.

[loz]

There is a news item on the home page here reporting Sky+ and Pace.
It contains the following which I found a bit confusing
"If you are already a Sky Digital subscriber, you will not have to give your existing digibox back when you get SkyPlus. In fact, the SkyPlus box has two RF outputs, one supporting TV link, so that you can use your existing box with a differnet digital TV channel in a second room."

I don't know what two RF outputs on Sky+ has to do with using your existing box in another room.
Nor does it clarify if the two outputs carry different signals.

[loz]

Originally posted by Norman:
<STRONG>MJS raised a good point. If you stop paying the £10, what functionality will you loose?
&lt;snip&gt;
I'm going to buy one from the outset and see if it can justify an extra £10 per month (doubtful) and if it can't, I'll stop paying.
My original Pace digibox is on the verge of packing up, and I'll be happy to pay £300 for the dual tuner option alone.</STRONG>

I am not sure I have seen a statement anywhere that you can buy Sky+ without a sub. Can you?
It is always refered to as "£300 plus a £10 sub". Never "£300, plus an optional sub"

[Norman]

Ioz
I'm sure you will have to pay the sub initially to get Sky+, but they can't stop you from cancelling the sub at the end it's agreement period (if it has one).
Currently, you can upgrade/downgrade your Sky package at will, so when you tell them "I no longer want to pay £10 a month for Sky+, but leave my current viewing package intact" what will they do?
If Sky are using Tivo as a model, perhaps they will also offer a one-off £200 payment for life-long subscription - that would be an acceptable compromise.

[squid]

i can understand tivo charging a sub . they are carrying out a service and need to pay there staff .

sky already have this system in place though and have to program the tv guide if you have sky+ or not so what is the extra dosh paying for . the top brass bigger cars thats what :(

it may actualy help if they told us what exactly we are gona get for all the money . if they are gona make it so you can conect sky+ to your old digi box (through the pc type conector or somthing) so you can whatch all your subscibed channels on the other box it would be worth it . it would be nice to know if we can whatch another channel in another room

at the momment this point is not realy known. if we can whatch two channels at the same time in diferent rooms then the tenner may be woth it . if not then i do not see how they can justify any sub . the recording is not realy important (repeats). the dd output and the pos of watching two channels at once

if we can watch two channels and they anounce the introduction of dd then i am in but not till then :p

[StephenR]

Originally posted by General Skanky:
<STRONG>Trust me, they make an absolute fortune as it is.</STRONG>

It seems I'm alone here! Believe me I'm no friend of Sky - my old box packed up and I have recently paid £150 for a new one - but it is simply not true that Sky are making a fortune and are taking us for a ride. Sky have enormous debts because of the free box offer. It takes them around three years to recoup the costs for each subscriber if they subscribe to the full package, longer if they don't. This £10/month is a way to recoup their costs. Would I prefer not to pay it? Of course. But if I were is Sky's position would I charge a sub? Again, of course. It's just business.

However, the point about paying £500 up-front rather than £300 plus £10/month is a good one. TiVo offer this, and I would prefer it. Of course, if you don't pay the sub you will still have a box which has an S-Video output and supports Dolby Digital, but you will lose the recording functions.

[General Skanky]

Big business.
'Only' 3 years or so to make a profit!
Like I said, they make a mint.
They have spent up front, investing as they should and are in position to reap the rewards.
So I say again, no way to a sub of any kind.

[The Spaniard]

A couple of questions.....will the normal pace boxes be able to receive dolby digital and output to your amp if they ever transmit it..I know this might be a stupid question but go easy on me...and two, I am interested in feeding the best possible picture to my brand new , yet to be installed Sony v w10ht projector....will I get a better feed with the new box. If I stay with my existing box should I feed to the rgb or the s video. I know I will have to have a lead made up to convert scart to 'S'.

[squid]

if you have an old pace box it is very unlikly that you will ever be able to output dd with it.( no compatable output .

when it comes to s-video or rgb . to get s-video . you would need an rgb to s-video converter . digiboxs do not output s-video through scart . you may be better with rgb if you get the corect cable ( a few people i have seen have had a few problems trying to output rgb to a pj though . you may have to have a lead specialy made . i'm no expert on this sort of thing though :)

[loz]

Another page on Sky+ in the August Sky Mag (has it been a month already??)
Not much that hasnt been discussed here, but I did note the following

1. "Sky+ works with your existing minidish"
This is confusing. Thought it needed a quad lnb, and £50 installation charge.
I suppose it can use the existing dish, but I think many people will be confused by this.

2. Not going to be available in Repulic of Ireland at launch. "watch this space" it says. Wonder how long?

3. "£10 per month for the Sky+ service, which lets you access the Sky+ PTR functions"
Well there we have it. the sub is for nothing more than the ability to use the box you just paid £300 for.

[Dave H]

Look in todays news how much money sky are making!
talk about robbery,at least Dick Turpin wore a mask..
:eek:

[Jim Robson]

"Talk about robbery, at least Dick Turpin wore a mask.." Ho, ho! I found that very amusing!! :)

Regards

Jim :D

[Couch Potato]

I spoke to the help desk and they said if you cancel the sub they can disable the PVR function remotely!!

Also they want to charge an additional £12 for your existing digibox to mirror your chosen package to facilitate different channel in different room:

Full package £34
Sky + sub £10
Existing digibox £12

£56 per month.... this is getting silly, a 60+% increase in monthly sub.

Maybe thats what they mean by Sky Plus :eek:

Rgds
Couch

(AKA Steve)

[StephenR]

Originally posted by Couch Potato:
<STRONG>£56 per month.... this is getting silly, a 60+% increase in monthly sub.</STRONG>

But only if you want this additional functionality. If you don't want PVR functions or to be able to watch another channel you are subscribed to in a different room then don't pay!

I do happen to think they are charging too much though. Sky+ should be £5 per month (to undercut TiVo) and mirroring charge should be £10 per month like additional cable boxes are. I hope Sky consider a lifetime option for Sky+ like TiVo has so you can just pay £199 up front instead of £10/month. If you're tied to a sub who's to say Sky won't incrase this in the future like they do with their channel packages?

[Nic Rhodes]

I don't subscribe to Sky. I have been holding out for a digital output, DD transmissions and PVR capability. £10 a month on top of everything else is just too much. I will therefore not be subscribing to Sky. Now that is good marketing isn't it?

;)

A missed opertunity.

[squid]

i may end up canceling my sky in a month . (i was one of the orig subscibers who payed for the box) my subscription is going up to the same as everyone elses in sep .

i was going to cancel then i heard about the sky+. this thing may have regained me as a subsciber with the digi out and all the other features but this whole extra sub thing as put my right off .

the full sudsciption price is bad abough without more expence .

no way am i forking out a big wad again to find out in 12 months they are being given away free . the least they could do is give us the boxes if they are charging an extra sub. in myop they are getting to cocky and big for there boots . i think it is about time that the monopolys and mergers comision got on there back

they are taking advantage of the lack of competition to screw us all for all the cash they can .

would'nt it be lovely if another sat company would start up. then as far as i'm conserned sky could go f**k them selves up the a**e :D

[Dave H]

well said Squid!

[johnson]

Here,here!<br />Simon

[mart.stokes]

Gosh, the big problem here is the fact that there IS NO competition. I agree totally with Squid but the Sky momentum is now so great.

The major problem is the fact that Sky have a two pronged attack, they "own" the method of delivery and they own the majority of channels. It wouldn't be so bad if Sky was JUST a delivery system and they only had channels on owned by other people (Eurosport, BBC etc.) but they don't. Look at how the ITVDigital people are screwed by somebody holding back some of the important channels (I believe not all Sky Sports channels are available on ITVDigital). This ends up making Sky Digital the "real deal".

Eutelsat tried to challenge Sky Analogue at the end of the last century with their Hotbird system, as I remember they even offered free or subsidised dual LNB feeds for a short time. This fell by the wayside.

We are screwed, Rupert is better than ANY drugs dealer I know (not that I know many!). He invested a lot of time and money introducing us to the drug and now he has a large percentage of the population hooked. He just sits back and waits for us to come knocking and give him our money. A lot of us were getting excited by the prospect of a new drug, Sky plus, that would take our pleasure to even higher levels. I now realise that it was obvious we weren't going to get it for nothing!

[Frustin]

as per usual the people of the UK get rogered.

I am going to look into sky+ as i currently use telewest cable and the subscription is up pretty soon.

[raigraphixs]

How much difference would it make if we stood up too them from time to time like with the petrol crisis.

If every cancelled the same week or day just for a week and tell them they are getting too expensive for the working public to keep paying more and more.

Maybe just maybe they may have to think about their next move. All we need is a trendy name for it and some pr and some neat t-shirts with something like 'fu%k the $ky'.

Any body want to take this further?

rai

[mart.stokes]

rai, great idea but it's never going to happen for the following reasons;

1) It's difficult to picket a satellite, the transport costs tend to be prohibitive.

2) Like a said, Rupert is a brilliant drug dealer. That many people are hooked on TV. Imagine saying to your local junkies "I know how we can force down the price of smack, we refuse to buy it!!!!". See the problem here?

Despite all I have said I just KNOW I will be suckered by Sky+.

[whittalc]

As an ex-pat Brit now living in Canada you do have my deepest sympathy that there is still no real alternative to BSkyB. I was one of the folks who got burned by initially backing BSB...the original British Satellite Broadcasting, before the infamous "merger" with Sky (i.e. takeover) to form British Sky Broadcasting.

Now it appears that BSkyB, in the guise of SkyDigital, are really going to try to bleed you dry...simply because they have no real competition and because they can.

Here in Canada I subscribe to one of the two Canadian digital satellite DTH services - <a href="http://www.expressvu.com" target="_blank">Bell ExpressVu</a>. As a subscriber I can buy as many receivers as I want from my local dealer, feed them from the dual-LNB dish (that comes as standard) and, so long as they are each plugged into my phone line (so that ExpressVu's computer can verify that they're all at the same location), there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXTRA CHARGE for having my entire subscription package activated on all of the additional receivers.

And this week ExpressVu just announced their own PVR - the 5100. (They source all of their receivers from Echostar in the USA, and so we tend to get the same models as Echostar's own Dish Network in the States...albeit a few months after their US launch).

So, how much do you think ExpressVu are going to charge their customers to make full use of their 5100 PVR? Around C$22 (£10) like Sky? No. Maybe C$10 (about £4.50)? Wrong again! Yes, you've guessed it. After buying the ExpressVu 5100 PVR for C$600 (about £273) customers will not be charged a single penny extra over their regular subscription rates to fully utilize the PVR functions and enhanced program guide!

Same thing goes for their Model 6000 HDTV receiver...although there are only two or three HDTV channels available in Canada at the moment - one (occasional) movie channel from "TMN - The Movie Network", one carrying assorted network programs from the US network's "digital" stations in Boston (sometime HDTV, sometimes just up-converted standard definition programming), and one pay-per-view movie channel from ExpressVu themselves.

So, your thinking, the subscription rates must be Sky-high! (If you'll pardon the pun?) Not a bit of it. The package I take, called "The Works", includes access to over 200 TV and audio channels for about C$61 per month (£27.75) after taxes are added in. The 7 movie channels and 4 US Superstations, for example, can be added to any basic package (the 40-channel "Locals" is just C$10.95, or £5.75 with taxes) for just C$19.95 per month (about £10.50 after adding the 15% taxes here in Ontario).

And Sky aren't the only culprit here. ITV Digital (which I arranged for my retired parents to receive) don't seem to have yet figured out how to encourage multi-TV households to install multiple receivers to better utilize their service. Perhaps when they launch their Nokia-sourced web-surfing PVR they will have figured out how to attract multi-TV households to their service without holding them to ransom.

I'm sure that if enough SkyDigital and ITV Digital customers complain long enough and hard enough, and can get the rest of the "media" to highlight what daylight robbery is being carried out, then these companies might just have to re-think their policies for multiple receivers in the same household. You can always point to the Canadian example as a way that it can be done!

Best regards,<br />Conrad

Conrad Whittall<br />Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

[loz]

[quote]Originally posted by rai:<br /><strong>How much difference would it make if we stood up too them from time to time like with the petrol crisis.

rai</strong><hr></blockquote>

And what difference did the 'dump the pump' campaign make?<br />Government policy? Nil<br />Petrol prices? Nil<br />Petrol company profits? Record highs<br />Petrol consumption? increasing

Oh yes, we stood up to them alright