[gingerjedi]

On another thread someone asked what would sky's reaction be to the freesat HD PVR that's due out soon?

I for one and many on here (I guess?) are planning to ditch Sky+ when this comes out, Sky must be aware of this so what do you think they can do to tempt you away from purchasing this box?

Personally I'm fed up with paying a subscription just to use the '+' functionality of their box (especially as my recorded program list is full of probably 95% free to air programming) and I also don't want to pay a premium for HD, a free Sky+ HD box for £10 a month basic package would be the only offer that would stop me swapping, what about everyone else?

[jonokimber]

I'm not sure they'll be too bothered by the small amount of dissenters.

I am a prime candidate for moving camps like you. I reduced from the full Sky+ package when i moved in to a new money pit (house) earlier this year. I am now on a basic package for sky+ and will be Freesat PVR'ing at the earliest opportunity.

Sky seemed to shift in attitude just prior to me moving to be honest and there were quite a few comments about failed attempts to coerce them into offering a better package in answer to the threat of leaving.

I can't see them offering much in the way of freebies when competing with Freesat. There are plenty of paying customers out there.

I hope they do, but really can't see it.

Jono

[Starburst]

Anyone just paying the £10 for SKY+ functions will obviously benefit long term by buying into a Freesat DVR but really as the only option is to remove the fee then SKY gains nothing, SKY+ is free for channel subscribers and if you want the pay channels then the Freesat DVR is irrelevant.

The question for those thinking of moving over is the long term saving worth the short term expenditure especially as this time next year there may be multiple models at half the price

[Jonstone]

Originally Posted by Starburst

Anyone just paying the £10 for SKY+ functions will obviously benefit long term by buying into a Freesat DVR but really as the only option is to remove the fee then SKY gains nothing, SKY+ is free for channel subscribers and if you want the pay channels then the Freesat DVR is irrelevant.

The question for those thinking of moving over is the long term saving worth the short term expenditure especially as this time next year there may be multiple models at half the price

Well if this time next year the models are half the price i.e. £150 then anyone who would be saving that £10 a month will not be risking that much buying now as they would have paid sky almost the difference in price over that timescale.

Sky do have another option of cutting the sky+ fee to £5 which would make the freesat box a far less attractive option although I do not believe they would do this as it would assume that more than half of the people currently paying the £10 charge will move to freesat which I doubt.

There is also the customer who currently subscribes to the minimum sky package as it seems better value than giving sky £10 per month just to be able to record the free channels. There is a danger that some of these people would downgrade to just paying for the recording facility if it was only £5.

So I do not think sky will do anything to react to freesat as its hard to see what the financial incentive to do so would be.

[covdude]

I think this freesat pvr is a good tester for skys reaction but looking ahead i wonder what they will do when hd pvr s for freeview come out ?

Yours listening to the big fight !

Steve

[Jonstone]

Originally Posted by covdude

I think this freesat pvr is a good tester for skys reaction but looking ahead i wonder what they will do when hd pvr s for freeview come out ?

Yours listening to the big fight !

Steve

I do not think as many people are bothered about hd as we might think.

Maybe the real test for sky will be analogue turnoff, when the number of people who can receive freeview will increase to close to 95% and most of those people will be getting a strong signal.

A fair percentage of sky's subscribers want the premium channels, either movies or sports, so for them freeview/freesat is not an option

[Broadz]

By Sky keeping the Freesat Sky+ price at £10, they are encouraging a lot of customers to subscribe to the minimum mix at £17, which gives them Sky+ functionality for free. To a lot of people, the difference between £10 and £17 per month isn't that high, and it gives them a single mix as well as the ability to record.

If Sky were to drop the Sky+ fee completely, or lower it to only a fiver, a lot of people would consider paying £17 for a single mix too much money, if they could still have Sky+ for free or for only a fiver. So Sky may end up losing not only the £10 per month which they are currently getting from Freesat customers, but also a lot of single mix customers currently paying them £17 per month. So it would be a double whammy blow for them to drop or reduce the price of Sky+ when not a Sky TV customer.

[gingerjedi]

For me Sky was a good value when I first got it just for the sheer choice compared to the 5 channels on offer, IMO over the years Sky's output has deteriated whilst the free to air channels have seriously upped their game in terms of choice and variety.

Assuming Sky can't/won't compete on a price what are they going to do to put the 'WOW' factor back into their package? What can they offer us that others can't?

[Steve Zodiac]

Unless Sky do something pretty dramatic over the next year to 18 months, then I really think the writing is on the wall for them.

Almost everyone I know who had Sky has kicked their subscription into touch during the last few years - myself included.

IMO, Freesat PVRs are just one step closer to Sky's eventual demise. When HD arrives on Freeview, that won't do them any favours either.

I'm no Sky hater, I just think they're far too greedy for their own good.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by gingerjedi

Assuming Sky can't/won't compete on a price what are they going to do to put the 'WOW' factor back into their package? What can they offer us that others can't?

HD Sport, HD Movies, HD TV series from the US, HD Documentaries and HD Sky Arts.

Increasing number of HD channels, becoming better value all the time.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by gingerjedi

For me Sky was a good value when I first got it just for the sheer choice compared to the 5 channels on offer, IMO over the years Sky's output has deteriated whilst the free to air channels have seriously upped their game in terms of choice and variety.

Assuming Sky can't/won't compete on a price what are they going to do to put the 'WOW' factor back into their package? What can they offer us that others can't?

Without any doubt the free content based on the advertising model has increased dramatically and certainly a lot of content I could only get from PAY telly I can find on the free channels. The same thing can be seen within PAY telly as many channels now go after US genre content which once upon a time only SKY1 provided in any quantity.

The bottom line though is SKY has continued to increase subscribers and offered more bundled deals (the cheap Broadband linked to TV sub is a great marketing tool) along with HD and upcoming IPTV and while times are going to be tough over the next couple of years the advertising based channels and rival pay operations are going to suffer as well and the whole sector may have to step back a little.
SKY's obvious advantage is £800 million profit which can be used to sweeten the companies product lineup and still operate in the black so they will probably ride out a period of poor market performance.

For those who are happy with the big 3 free broadcasters and their spin off channels plus a handful of others it doesn't matter if SKY slashed prices by 50% and that is ultimately why SKY don't play the cost cutting game.

[Jaycee Dove]

Originally Posted by Jonstone

I do not think as many people are bothered about hd as we might think.

Sky would disagree. They reduced the HD box price to under £100 and have been totally swamped by sales - so many they are struggling to fit them before January.

However,that is with the vastly increased amount of HD which is available via Sky and which you have to pay for.

My guess is that you are right in terms of Freesat - less people will want the limited HD options there. If you are that bothered about HD then you will want plenty of it and after paying for an HD TV set might be willing to pay a sub to Sky.

Sky versus Freesat is not a fight over HD and is not really a fight at all. They are different set ups aimed at different people. Those with the money who watch a lot of TV and want plenty of HD are always going to choose Sky. Those who are cuttings costs or watch relarively little TV and are not fussed about HD might well choose Freesat.

But over the HD battleground Freesat is always going to struggle to offer much HD - at least in the short term - so its customers will be those for whom HD is a bonus, not a priority. There will be some of these. But if they get the taste for HD some of them are going to go to Sky eventually.

Although Digital Spy is reporting yet another rumour about Sky dropping the HD sub in January as the success of the HD push has left them with so many HD subscribers they can afford it.

I am dubious that this will occur just yet but it might be another part of the Sky 'reaction' to the PVR.

[gingerjedi]

I can't help but think that people have become complacent about paying for TV, what was once a luxury is now seen in the same light as a gas or electric bill.

‘If’ there is a major recession and ‘if’ people in numbers really started to examine what they are paying for compared to what’s available for free then I think Sky may be in trouble, it took Sky a very long time to get into a profitable situation, I don't think it would take much to reverse that.

I for one have made up my mind as I just don’t think its good value, now all I have to do is convince the guy at cancellations that I really do mean it this time!

[Grinnders]

Originally Posted by Jaycee Dove

Sky would disagree. They reduced the HD box price to under £100 and have been totally swamped by sales - so many they are struggling to fit them before January.

However,that is with the vastly increased amount of HD which is available via Sky and which you have to pay for.

My guess is that you are right in terms of Freesat - less people will want the limited HD options there. If you are that bothered about HD then you will want plenty of it and after paying for an HD TV set might be willing to pay a sub to Sky.

Sky versus Freesat is not a fight over HD and is not really a fight at all. They are different set ups aimed at different people. Those with the money who watch a lot of TV and want plenty of HD are always going to choose Sky. Those who are cuttings costs or watch relarively little TV and are not fussed about HD might well choose Freesat.

But over the HD battleground Freesat is always going to struggle to offer much HD - at least in the short term - so its customers will be those for whom HD is a bonus, not a priority. There will be some of these. But if they get the taste for HD some of them are going to go to Sky eventually.

Although Digital Spy is reporting yet another rumour about Sky dropping the HD sub in January as the success of the HD push has left them with so many HD subscribers they can afford it.

I am dubious that this will occur just yet but it might be another part of the Sky 'reaction' to the PVR.

There is another sector of the population that cannot get good terrestial reception, need a dish setup but don't want to pay sky subs, wnat to record to disk, would like the HD experience and they actually have enough with BBC, ITV, C4 and C5. Like "Moi"

[dodgyd]

Freesat is still mostly a mystery to the average punter in the street, a bit like TiVo was/is. As a test, ask your neighbour if they know what a Freesat HD PVR is.

[BrianMc]

Originally Posted by gingerjedi

Assuming Sky can't/won't compete on a price what are they going to do to put the 'WOW' factor back into their package? What can they offer us that others can't?

I am really happy with the HD channels on Sky. They put the "wow factor" back for me in a way that Freesat (with just 1 and a bit HD channels currently does not!)

[trax101]

I have been a sky subscriber for over 8 years and was always an 'early adopter'. I bought into Sky+ at the beginning when you 'had' to pay the £10 and also bought into HD when the box was £350.

I chanced my arm this year and decided to leave sky. They wouldn't offer me any deal apart from the £10 HD charge reduced to £5 for 6 months.
In the end I reduced my package to £22 (now £23) for 2 mixes - Sky1 etc and Sky Kids with mid range broadband and telephone package.

What decided the drop for me was the fact that I was recording mainly free to air TV. Don't get me wrong I miss the sport, occasional movie and documentaries, but £23 back to £60+ is a big hike. I have recently received offers for half price movies and sports for 3 months, but won't be suckered back into the trap.

If I can get a decent price for my 500Gb sky HD box , find a deal for phone and broadband, then I might leave altogether and buy the new Humax box.
The recent Christmas advertising for sky movies is annoying me more than the the xmas coca cola adverts!

[scaffolderus]

Yes, I'd been paying the full £45 (or whatever it was when I started) for nearly 10 years. When I bought my new TV and moved my kit round my sky box died. To say that Sky was unhelpful and rude is an understatement. I went out and and bought the Humax box and cancelled my Sky the same day. All of a sudden they couldn't do enough for me: reduced subscription, Sky HD+ box, even said that Rupert Murdoch would be round that afternoon to install it (ok, that's a slight exaggeration but you get the picture). Pleased me no end to say "thanks, but no thanks". I expected to miss Sky and eventually go back, but I didn't. Really looking forward to getting the PVR which I suspect will make my Sony HD/DVD recorder redundant. I doubt that Sky will suffer that much at the hands of Freesat, but isn't good to have a choice? Yes, we need some more HD content but I still think it's magic.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by gingerjedi

I can't help but think that people have become complacent about paying for TV, what was once a luxury is now seen in the same light as a gas or electric bill.

‘If’ there is a major recession and ‘if’ people in numbers really started to examine what they are paying for compared to what’s available for free then I think Sky may be in trouble, it took Sky a very long time to get into a profitable situation, I don't think it would take much to reverse that.

Lots of 'ifs' there. The alternative view of course is that during a recession people stay in more and seek cheaper entertainment. So a full sky HD package at less than the price of a pint a day might seem good value.

I for one have made up my mind as I just don’t think its good value, now all I have to do is convince the guy at cancellations that I really do mean it this time!

In other words you'd really like to keep it.

[Patient]

I was an early adopter of Sky and have had the full package for as long as I can remember (must be > 15 years).

However, when the Humax Freesat PVR comes out Sky will be binned (replaced by freesat + movie rental package).

My main reason is that I'm totally p*****d with the amount of adverts they now show on the channels I pay for.

[forrestgump]

Well I cancelled Sky HD a few months back, mainly for cost purposes as all these direct debits every month add up! Yes all the adverts are annoying but people put up with them because sky have the content that no one else has, freesat will take years to compete with them on the programming front, and as for HD content, Sky are that far ahead they will NEVER be bettered for HD programming in this country anyway.

Anyway I had the Humax PVR on order and in the meantime bought a panny HD recorder off the forum to use to record until the Humax came out.

Now I have re-joined Sky because I can get Broadband, TV and phone calls from Sky all in for £27.00 a month including the £10.00 for recording, I have cancelled my BT which was costing £35.00 a month so I save and get my Sky HD back, sorted.

Before anyone asks the sky offer includes free phone line rental for 12 months.

[BrianMc]

Originally Posted by Patient

However, when the Humax Freesat PVR comes out Sky will be binned (replaced by freesat + movie rental package).

If very little HD content (and no HD documentaries or sports!) does for you then - great! - a perfect solution!

Since I have had the SkyHD STB I never now look at any adverts. The Sky+ features make it so easy to skip over them.

[nwhitfield]

No HD documentaries and sports on Freesat? How do you work that out then?

I'm pretty certain I've seen quite a few documentaries on BBC HD. And there was that Olympic thing too, back in the summer.

Now, I know the Olympics has finished, but I really do think you're stretching things a bit when you suggest there are or will be no documentaries or sport on Freesat's HD channels.

[John_Gateshead]

I'm planning to go to Freesat when the Humax Freesat PVR comes out. I want HD TV but feel Sky is outrageously expensive. I don't watch sport at all, and only rent the occasional (SD) DVD for new films. I don't understand how Sky gets away with "selling" a box with a HD recording facility and then still charging an extra subscription to allow users to record.

If Sky had a reasonably priced package that included some HD channels (perhaps including Sky 1) then I would consider subscribing. By reasonable I mean £20 per month or under. For that price, I don't think I would currently get anything from them that I haven't got on Freeview.

[Grinnders]

Originally Posted by forrestgump

Now I have re-joined Sky because I can get Broadband, TV and phone calls from Sky all in for £27.00 a month including the £10.00 for recording, I have cancelled my BT which was costing £35.00 a month so I save and get my Sky HD back, sorted.

Before anyone asks the sky offer includes free phone line rental for 12 months.

Now THIS is a good deal and it would swing the whole argument the other way for me, but unfortunately Sky can't offer the basic FREE broadband on my exchange.. claim it's something to do with the exchange. What I don't understand is tests show I can get up to 3.5Mb download and the basic Sky is only up to 2Mb isn't it ? Anyone know why Sky won't offer the free broadband on certain exchanges or is it just that they know NTL never dug up my road so Virgin can't provide competition ?

A slightly contentious question I know.. but so far every friend I've spoken to who can't get the sky free broadband package ALSO can't get virgin cable

[dwhite]

Originally Posted by Grinnders

Now THIS is a good deal and it would swing the whole argument the other way for me, but unfortunately Sky can't offer the basic FREE broadband on my exchange.. claim it's something to do with the exchange. What I don't understand is tests show I can get up to 3.5Mb download and the basic Sky is only up to 2Mb isn't it ? Anyone know why Sky won't offer the free broadband on certain exchanges or is it just that they know NTL never dug up my road so Virgin can't provide competition ?

A slightly contentious question I know.. but so far every friend I've spoken to who can't get the sky free broadband package ALSO can't get virgin cable

Just because you can get a 3.5Mb line doesn't mean you can get sky broadband Sky need to have installed there own equipment in your local exchange. I believe there plan is to expand to all exchanges, so it will happen, it just takes time. Your current test result is probably for the BT equipment in your local exchange.

[Keith@MoleEnd]

It all depends on how many Freesat HD PVR's are sold or perceived by Sky will be sold, ie how big of a threat to Sky. I am sure Sky will be monitoring the launch of the Humax Foxsat+ HDR very closely. Sky will be able to lose a number of its customers without hurting too much I would have thought. If income levels off or deteriorates to a pre-determined degree, as a direct result of the introduction of the Freesat HD PVR, then Sky will react to protect their client base and potential customers. We are now in a recession which may be deep and last some time which will affect the whole industry. I do expect Sky, in any event, to offer better value for existing customers and more attractive incentives for new customers sooner or later.
The choice is as ever - you pays your money and takes your choice. It all depends on your personal circumstances and your viewing preferences. What suits one family may not suit another.
Having said all that it can only be good news for the consumer that there is at last some competition in the market.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by Grinnders

Anyone know why Sky won't offer the free broadband on certain exchanges or is it just that they know NTL never dug up my road so Virgin can't provide competition ?

A slightly contentious question I know.. but so far every friend I've spoken to who can't get the sky free broadband package ALSO can't get virgin cable

As dwhite says the free broadband is the result of SKY placing it's LLU services in your local exchange, in other words they don't have to pay BT for a wholesale line and charge their customers around £17 a month to cover the cost. However with LLU they can offer their own connection off the back of their own backbone as a loss leader.

Given that VM only covers about 40% of the nation then there are millions who can not get their cable service but as with all LLU providers they target the high population areas first but SKY probably more than anyother LLU based service is rapidly expanding. SKY want to offer an IPTV service and for that they need control of the network and by offering cheap broadband they improve the value of their TV packages.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by Keith@MoleEnd

Having said all that it can only be good news for the consumer that there is at last some competition in the market.

Amen
I don't think Freesat is the answer to any question but it certainly provides more options and that is never a bad thing when it doesn't come with an unreasonable price tag.

[Bachstrad]

Originally Posted by John_Gateshead

I'm planning to go to Freesat when the Humax Freesat PVR comes out. I want HD TV but feel Sky is outrageously expensive. I don't watch sport at all, and only rent the occasional (SD) DVD for new films. I don't understand how Sky gets away with "selling" a box with a HD recording facility and then still charging an extra subscription to allow users to record.
If Sky had a reasonably priced package that included some HD channels (perhaps including Sky 1) then I would consider subscribing. By reasonable I mean £20 per month or under. For that price, I don't think I would currently get anything from them that I haven't got on Freeview.

But that's not the case is it? If you subscribe to Sky you don't pay anything extra to record, it's free.

For anyone who doesn't want to pay for their TV service the arrival of the Humax HD PVR will be perfect. One and a bit HD channels doesn't cut it for me though.

As to your £20 a month or under, it's just a matter of how much you value TV as part of your overall entertainment. I pay Sky £67 a month for SD, HD. Movies & Sports and Multiroom. That to me is around £2 a day and represents good value for money. At least those people who don't think the same way that I do now have an alternative, but for me Freesat has nothing to offer.

ATB

Max