Make your own package?

Discussion in 'Satellite TV, Sky TV & FreeSat' started by sinbrad, Mar 17, 2004.

  1. sinbrad

    sinbrad
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just a thought but why can't SKY let it's customers make up their own sky packages and cut out all the channels that they never watch?

    Another question to do with subscription charges and duplicate channels - SKY state every year when asked about the subscription hikes that it is because they are introducing new channels etc. Well two channels that have just been introduced - UKTV DOCS and UKTV HISTORY are basic imitations of the Discovery and History channels so what's new about that, Same programming different channels!

    Also with the advent of SKY+ what is the purpose of all those channels that have their programmes repeated an hour later? If you have sky+ you just record what you think you are going to miss!

    Don't get me wrong it's not a moan, just can't see the point. SKY should offer different packages for both the standard SKY viewers and the SKY+ viewers. There again I suppose that's what SKY are good at, over pricing!

    For info I don't have SKY+ just the basic SKY
     
  2. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979
    If people could only pay for the channels they wanted then 90% of those currently broadcasting would vanish and the rest would have to charge anything from a couple of quid a month to a tenner a month. Just look at the average viewing audiences for most channels, they hover around 100,000 with a few noteable exceptions.
    It's easy to look at the deals from TW, NTL and now TUTV and say well they are cheaper but most of those channels get payments from SKY for being in their packages which is used to subsidise the low or non-profit carriage on other channels. Without money from SKY certain Freeview channels couldn't afford to survive on advertising revenues alone and would vanish. Plus the phone and net business of the cable companies keep their poor performing digital TV arms afloat. SKY has no option but to make it's money by offering channels that people are prepared to pay for, they have no fall back position.

    It's easy to say I only watch SKY1 and E4 so I am only going to pay for them but they to survive by taking a slice from over 7million subscriptions and if enough people decided that they didn't want to watch the channels you liked then you might see your favorite channel removed.

    At this time I can not see a more reasonable system that protects the smaller channels while offering the greatest choice to the customer. Maybe in time when SKY's billion pound debt is cleared they will start to offer more lower tier packages, Tony Ball before he left indicated such a move which would allow them to expand into homes that didn't want to pay too much ontop of the license fee but that is for the future.

    Err, as for SKY+ it is only in around 4% of the homes that have subscription TV, the use of +1 and other time shifted channels is a god send to homes with only a single digital source especially as the primetime slot is very over crowded. It also allows those channels to offer better deals for advertisers which in the long run not only pays for the extra transponder capacity but gives viewers more choice.

    It's so very easy to accuse SKY of over pricing, aggressive pricing definetly but at the end of the day they went into debt to the tune of £1.8 billion and that has to be recouped, no business could afford to do anything else.
    When the debt which is still over £1 billion has been cleared that will be the time to judge how much SKY is profiteering and how they can justify price increases above inflation.
     
  3. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
    Ondigital gave a choice of channels - I was in shall I cancel or shall I drop to 6 when BUMP they went under
     
  4. sinbrad

    sinbrad
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's me told, so much for freedom of speech!:confused:
     
  5. lynx

    lynx
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,633
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    It always rains.
    Ratings:
    +301
    I fail to see your point espescially regarding 'free speach'. Starburst comprehensively answered your questions. :confused:
     
  6. sinbrad

    sinbrad
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    A simple answer to each question would have done, I don't think a history lecture of SKY's losses and gains amounts to an answer. I asked why SKY was launching new channels and making you pay for them in the latest price hike, when the content of such channels was a duplication of channels already on SKY? I also stated that the +1 hour channels were of no great use to SKY+ viewers as it would only really benefit the regular SKY viewers, He just turned that around. Anyway with the amount of repeats on SKY it wouldn't be long before that programme is shown again. In his reply he also wrote


    How does he know people are prepared to pay for channels. In all my time with SKY they have not asked me if I want a channel or not. They Basically add a channel or two, put up the price and the subscribers have no say.
     
  7. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979
    While it's true that many questions have simple answers it's obvious to anyone that when you are askign a question about policy and decision making with a multi billion pound broadcasting operation you can not expect a simple answer that doesn't have associations with the overall business model and how that works.

    Perhaps I misunderstand your intentions and if I did then I apologise but I assumed you wanted an intelligent answer with some background to why things are done in such and such a way and why doing it different may not be better for SKY or the subscribers in the long run.
    If you just wanted someone to post in agreement with you and roll out the all to common phrases used by those with issues with BSKYB, NewsCorp, Murdoch such as "SKY Greedy B******S! etc etc then I am sure there are forums that'll supply the answers that suit your opinion:)
     
  8. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979

    Actually the reason why SKY does most things the way it does is because it's the cheapest way and provides the biggest return on the investment. Having some further background on the fianances involved helps educate the subscriber and then if they still think SKY are taking the p**s it's at least an educated opinion and therefore carries more weight in any debate on the subject.

    SKY do indeed use the lauch of new channels as a reason for the more or less annual price hikes but there are plenty of other reasons why the subscriptions go up. Once again some background info makes this more clear and you may still consider it a pretty weak excuse you are once again coming from an informed position.
    Now I honestly do not know if channels added during the year are covered by the sub rise in Jan of that year or the sub rise the following Jan. I expect it's irrelevant as payments to new channels providers included in SKY packages are probably made from a general fund and then it's just basically PR when they say price rises are a direct result of new channels.
    Lets not forget that multipule broadcasters may indeed show the same programming, this especially is common when a family of channels are from the same company such a the UKTV brand, Viacom etc. As for independent broadcasters they are hardly going to talk to the competition and abandon programming that may clash with other channels:)

    SKY digibox subscribers out number SKY+ subscribers by around 7million so you would have to be extremely selfish to deny single tuner households the benifits of a +1 or similar channel.
    Repeats on the same channel or on a +1 are again a good thing but it has to be remembered that due to different timeslots the content may be edited differently and buying the rights to broadcast an episode more than once costs more than a single screening. All the channels should be congratulated for increasing the viewers access to the programming of their choice through the addition of repeats and +1 type channels.

    Just let put the vulcan ears on:)
    It's logical to assume that if people were not satisfied with the current channel/program content of SKY D then they would use their basic right to cancel their subscription. Since subscriber numbers keep going up it's safe to assume that while people will not be 100% happy they are happy enough.
    Ok perhaps that's not the most moral or ethical way to operate but BSKYB is a business and bottom line it exists to make money and can only do so by convincing people to pay for the service by offering them suitable content.

    None of the above may be useful to you either but you don't always get the answers that you want when you ask a question:)
     
  9. sinbrad

    sinbrad
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You misunderstand my original question(s). I did not intend to jump on the same bandwagon as the others who as you quote call SKY Greedy B******s etc. I have been with SKY almost from the time they came to light. I am happy with the programming etc. It's just that it's hard to justify prices going up for programming that is already on SKY on a different channel and also SKY has never given you the choice to accept or decline channels, it's the case of you will and you are going to have them. I also do not grudge single tuner households the benefit of +1 hour programming, in every answer/question I have input, I have actually said that it WOULD really only benefit the single tuner households and the SKY+ customers would really have no use for this having twin tuners, that is why I stated that it would be better for SKY+ households to have the opportunity to add/delete certain programmes. SKY+ households are already different to the single tuner households as they have to pay the extra for the recording facility (if they don't have one of the top sky packages that is). Finally I do welcome all that you say as it is forums like this that provide you with the wealth of information that you wouldn't normally have access to :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...