Sky 20 Years on thoughts

fuzzys

Ex Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
250
Reaction score
8
Points
86
Hi just wanted to inform you that sky are now 20 years old from analogue to digital, digital to high def wow can you imagine that television has improved in a short amount of time what are your thoughts.

here is the link for all sky fans to see what they have done over the years...

http://20years.sky.com/#Home
 
I think they should give HD customers 20 months free subs to celebrate! :D
 
In recent months they've been trying to reduce bitrates a few times, I hope this isn't going to be a case of getting nibbled to death.
 
I think HD subs should be scrapped! people are paying enough for movies, sports and other premium services without having to spend more than the cost of the hardware.
 
Maybe we should accept that Sky are never going to give away millions a month and that you have to pay if you want quality like anything in life.
 
Few stand out as the pioneers of television

Logie Baird, who really got the whole thing going

And Rupert Murdoch

Love him or hate him, he was the guy who put his money where his mouth was, and I well remember large chunks of time when no one would have given a rat's .... for his chance of avoiding bankruptcy when sky television was consuming money like an athlete on steroids in the early days

His business plan was, at times, widely derided. His early attempts at encryption were rubbished with cards re-issued at frequent intervals

I would suggest that if he had failed or given up we wouldn't have:-

multi channel satellite television
the Astra satellites in their present form
high def colour tv
the red button, even on terrestrial tv
the ability to watch live sport unedited, which was virtually unknown

Many complain about the current charges. They fail to take into account the impressive quality of much live coverage of sport and current affairs. Satellite transmission from all over the world, top commentators who know what they are talking about (most of the time, anyway) Big call centres (which do the business usually), even the ability to maintain a country wide service system for installation and repair. Continuing innovation. None of this comes cheap

At the end of the day, we all have the choice of subscribing or not. And even if we choose not to, it's fair to point out that the free satellite services, of which there are now hundreds, and the equipment to watch them free, would probably not be there if Murdoch had not gone out on a limb in those early days
 
Last edited:
I was one of the first 1200 to subscribe to Sky, 20 years ago! How do I know? Well, in 1995, I think it was, I received a small cardboard box and a letter from the Marketing Director of Sky. What did it say?

Well roughly it said " As one of the first 1200 to subscribe to Sky, we would like to thank you by asking to accept, with our compliments, the enclosed gift .....blah.....blah".

It was a Swatch Watch with a delightful plastic strap with SKY written all over it. So, after about £2160 worth of subscriptions, I received a tasteless watch worth about 15 quid. I wish I had kept it, it may have been a collectors item.

After another 14 years and some £8000 more in subscriptions ( averaged-currently pay £62 per month ), I've never even had a free month, let alone three or anything else for that matter.

Having said all that, I would never be without it and would echo the other replies. Sky certainly set the benchmark for modern television!

If anyone from Sky follows these threads, c'mon, we loyal customers are not asking for a Rolex, but, we ( or certainly I ) do not want another Swatch watch. A loyalty discount would be appreciated.

Good topic by the way!!!!

Col.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Few stand out as the pioneers of television

Logie Baird, who really got the whole thing going

And Rupert Murdoch

Love him or hate him, he was the guy who put his money where his mouth was, and I well remember large chunks of time when no one would have given a rat's .... for his chance of avoiding bankruptcy when sky television was consuming money like an athlete on steroids in the early days

His business plan was, at times, widely derided. His early attempts at encryption were rubbished with cards re-issued at frequent intervals

I would suggest that if he had failed or given up we wouldn't have:-

multi channel satellite television
the Astra satellites in their present form
high def colour tv
the red button, even on terrestrial tv
the ability to watch live sport unedited, which was virtually unknown

Many complain about the current charges. They fail to take into account the impressive quality of much live coverage of sport and current affairs. Satellite transmission from all over the world, top commentators who know what they are talking about (most of the time, anyway) Big call centres (which do the business usually), even the ability to maintain a country wide service system for installation and repair. Continuing innovation. None of this comes cheap

At the end of the day, we all have the choice of subscribing or not. And even if we choose not to, it's fair to point out that the free satellite services, of which there are now hundreds, and the equipment to watch them free, would probably not be there if Murdoch had not gone out on a limb in those early days

Nice post,

whilst I agree that Murdoch has been, & will remain, a huge player in the electronic broadcasting world! John Logie Baird was an inventor that got his hands dirty! there's no way the two can be comparable. I can't help but feel that you're overplaying Murdochs personal importance to the advancement of tv\satellite broadcasting technology and contrary to your opinion, I think his involvement has been to the detrement of satellite broadcasting innovation.

let me explain: Much of the early success of Sky in the UK can allegedly be attributed to the greasing of palms in the halls of power. I'm sure many here are old enough to remember the early rival to Sky, British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) with the gimmicky square satellite dish, the "Squarial", BSB was government backed, used suprerior broadcasting technology & even had 2 of it's own satellites launched. But the Thatcherite government of the time was in the process of selling off anything that wasn't nailed to the floor for a quick profit & BSB was haemoraging (government) money because of setup\maintainace costs. Much like the Betamax\VHS format war of the late 70's\early 80's which the cheaper, less advanced VHS format won. Sky was cheaper to maintain & cost because it piggybacked on the already established (and older) Astra satellites, so it became more abundant. It may be that Sky is the majority user of Astra now, but it wasn't always that way! there were already satellite services available in Europe before Sky got involved.

Murdoch bought out\into BSB to form British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) and sold the satellites, Squarials became a thing of the past & he now had the monopoly he needed to make his company a success. I agree that he spent vast sums of money poaching the nations best loved presenters to front all areas of exclusive programming, but to say he helped the advancement of the technology is pushing it a little. He is a very shrewd businessman that took advantage of peoples love of money & he effectively bought government support, he pays well. I personally don't believe he can be credited with much more than that.

I installed HD cable boxes to many a quality manor in north London before & during the 2006 world cup, and for all the talk of impressive live sports coverage, I've yet to see better quality live HD coverage than that of the BBC's 2006 world cup campaign! and I'm sure their live sports coverage will be on show again at this years Wimbledon on BBC HD. Try and get to see it on Analogue, CableHD, SkyHD and FreesatHD before making a judgement! I'll bet Freesat HD will give the best picture quality of all four formats, with Cable a close second.

Let's discuss. ;)
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia - BSB

OK! I wasn't spot on with my facts - but I was fairly close & considering it was all from memory, that's not bad. :hiya:
 
Let's discuss. ;)

OK. There's one thing we can both agree on. "He's a very shrewd businessman"

Yep. Spot on. And, I suppose that's why many don't like him

But if he wasn't, he'd have been gone long ago. Remember how he bought out The Times, when the Sunday edition had been shut for 9 months because of union pressure? Look at News International today. You may not like the method but it worked and how many does News International employ in the UK today?

But to get back to Sky. Remember, Murdoch only bought in to BSB when the management had basically failed to make the thing work financially. And although he started with hiring transponders on the Astra analogue system, I suggest that he was a major influence in the design and success of the digital satellites. Without him, they would have been much later and fewer

As to costs, he does pay well, but I don't think he does any more poaching than the BBC, who do it with public money. But the vast majority of his spend has been on buying and fitting and servicing the network including the boxes that sit in millions of homes

As for quality high def, I fully agree that, when it wants to, the BBC can ramp up the bandwidth so that prime events such as Wimbledon and the Last Night of the Proms are transmitted in full and stunning HD. Nothing can touch it. I can't comment on cable because, like the majority of the UK we don't have (and will never have) access to cable

But my great difficulty with the BBC is that they have given up on sport. Even though they can spend millions on making trailers they just don't pay for live sport anymore. And even when they do all too often we see bits rather than live coverage of the complete event.(although it is beginning to use the red button a bit more) However good the transmission quality it's a bit of a let down when you settle down to an afternoon of crown green bowls and find Sky is transmitting the test match or live premiership football

I can agree that the prices are high, but for folks (like me) who live in the sticks and could never travel or afford to go to a test match or to see one of the top football clubs play I reckon it's good value

And, like him or loathe him, I'm convinced I wouldn't be able to watch all these things if he hadn't had the balls and the foresight to put up his own money in the first place:)
 
Wasn't the birthday in February?:rolleyes:

Even if it is Sky's birthday, who cares!? You'll still have to pay for the service.:D:D
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom