What makes Sky worth it for YOU?

I imagine there's lots of people despise SKY; they just don't subscribe. But surely it isn't hard to despise a supplier that puts out 'quality' stuff such as babestation, poker games, sales channels and a wealth of other crap. In our case the only reasons for having Sky were that the Freeview checker said we couldn't get reception and it was good for the kids (I know what you mean Kenny Glasgow!). It turns out that a decent aerial does pick up freeview so we have ditched SKY. With a HDD freeview box you can record programmes OK and the picture/audio seem to be better than most SKY channels. And for me there is zero point having movie channels that only get films after they have been out a year, when Amazon rentals will send you 6 per month for £10.

There are still relatively few quality programmes out there but at least I am not paying daft money for the service and having to trawl through dozens of channels of garbage every night. Anyway, rant over! In the end of the day it really is personal choice and I can see that sports fans are left with fewer options.
 
ive only had bad experiences with sky themselves, but its still the best the product is still the best choice at the moment.

ive had sky+ for a few days now and so far Im very impressed.
 
Ease of use for Sky+ is its biggest selling point

My 73 year old mother can work Sky+ with no problems recording her soaps and Murder, Mystery, Death programmes when she's at the bingo :rotfl:

In the past she could never get to grips with video timers or the code thing a few years back

Even my 3 year old can watch her progs from it, so long as you don't delete anything and change the order :eek:
 
crobo said:
I imagine there's lots of people despise SKY; they just don't subscribe. But surely it isn't hard to despise a supplier that puts out 'quality' stuff such as babestation, poker games, sales channels and a wealth of other crap.......

Sky don't put out these programmes. They accept payments from these companies to include the programmes on the EPG. That is their total involvement. If you are in business, you don't turn down any extra business that's legal, so I don't despise Sky for doing this. Maybe you should despise the people who subscribe to these channels ? A lot of the blame has to be placed on parents who allow their kids to watch TV unsupervised in their bedrooms.
 
Hi

I downgraded from the full package to the family pack as we watch little skymovies or sport in the summertime as football ends .
I am just about to upgrade to footy again but I am gonna pass on the movies until the winter time.

I look forward to the time when existing customers will be able to choose the sky mix packs and add on sports


:oops:
 
G Canavan said:
How long before a PVR with the ease of Sky+ (Adult Friendly) turns up.

Well, video recorders have been around for about 25 years in many shapes and forms, and VideoPlus was the closest that they have ever got. We live in hopes ;)
 
Whether ot not SKY make them or even approve of them, the fact is these soft porn/ daft channels are there and there are LOTS of them. And since I have kids in their early-mid teens who do watch TV when we are out, this is yet another reason for ditching Sky. You can hardly instruct them to skip channels x, y z etc when using the remote. It is a simple fact that Freeview, in this particular sense, is more family-friendly.
 
I can understand some parents worried about their kids watching certain channels but these programmes are on AFTER 9pm. Remember that Channel 5 and rubbish like Big Brother on C4 are also available on Freeview and good old analogue.

You have the option of parental control with the Sky boxes and if people are worried about their early teen kids watching while they are out, then they shouldn't leave their teenagers home alone.....
 
I am considering getting sky, I have ME so im at home pretty much all day everyday because im so exhausted, at the moment I have freeview, but I think people like me would benefit from sky the most.

By the way: How would it cost to have Sky+ with everything I need? including the dish etc.
 
Nick_UK said:
There seems to be a small minority that "despise Sky" but they are very vocal, and they never seem to make much sense. You say there is nothing to watch, but don't want to give it up. Maybe it's just the paying bit that you want to give up ? :)

No the money is not the issue. Hell at least with Sky you can always stop it. Money wise it's the license fee that gets me, you have to pay that no matter how much crap is, on or no TV. It's just that with all the choice with Sky there's always a chance you might find, and oftren do, somethimg that takes your interest.

How many times can you flick through 5 channels? Limited freeview here supposedly, but I know no one who has even got it, all got Sky.
 
No the money is not the issue. Hell at least with Sky you can always stop it. Money wise it's the license fee that gets me, you have to pay that no matter how much crap is, on or no TV.
You do not pay the licence fee if you have no TV. IMHO it presents fantastic value: all the BBC channels (which by far have the best programming on - and all the more enjoyable by the lack of adverts), BBCi (a fantastic resource for adults/children alike) and BBC Radio.

In addition it's ironic that much of Sky's programming is purchased in conjunction with the BBC (normally on a Sky shows first, then the BBC policy) - so those who say 'I watch exclusively on Sky' are still benefiting from licence fee money.
 
The Licence fee is worth it just for the fact I dont have to sit through 20mins of ads in an hour long program.
The people who have listed what they view have shown that half of what they watch is on FTV.
 
The people who have listed what they view have shown that half of what they watch is on FTV
I was thinking the same :) Personally Sky is worth it for me for the current UKTV Drama repeats of the Onedin Line (a BBC Drama!) - but that is about all at present -everything else I watch is on Freeview (something else the BBC and Licence Fee have had a major hand in!).
 
Most Haunted and thats it. You can keep the rest!!!!
 
G Canavan said:
The Licence fee is worth it just for the fact I dont have to sit through 20mins of ads in an hour long program.

I don't sit through any ads anyway, I just FF past them on my TiVo or Sky+, for the little I actually watch on BBC, I'd be perfectly happy not to pay the licence fee and ditch BBC altogether.
 
Goooner said:
I don't sit through any ads anyway, I just FF past them on my TiVo or Sky+, for the little I actually watch on BBC, I'd be perfectly happy not to pay the licence fee and ditch BBC altogether.

The subscription needed to 'activate' Sky+ costs about the same as a TV license fee - 120 quid per year (admittedly waived if you already have an expensive Sky package of two or more premium channels).

That rather puts the TV license into perspective, as for your money you get a hell of a lot of quality homegrown radio and TV content, multiple radio and TV channels with some pretty decent bought-in programming PLUS the infrastructure needed to broadcast digital and analogue radio channels all over the UK. Compared to Sky you get a lot more VFM from the TV license IMO.

But of course, as pointed out the TV license is compulsory so I could see how it would annoy more.


Gav
 
I personaly would be more than happy to ditch all BBC output for a license fee rebate as I never watch it or listen to any BBC radio stations, in fact the only radio I listen to is Planet Rock on sat radio. But the fee will stay forever as the BBC haven't the balls to see how many would be like me and leave thus putting them in a funding problem. If it's as good as everyone says then why don't they put it to the test, then we would see just how much you lot would pay for crap.

At least with Sky you do have the choice, it's just a bloody shame that to see Sky you need to pay the BBC first.
 
I bet you are under 25. You probably listen to the radio for music and nothing else. When you get a little older and wiser, you will realise the value and total necessity of an independent corporation that does not have to bias its programmes and news/politics coverage to suit the whims of its advertisers.
 
Nick_UK said:
I bet you are under 25. You probably listen to the radio for music and nothing else. When you get a little older and wiser, you will realise the value and total necessity of an independent corporation that does not have to bias its programmes and news/politics coverage to suit the whims of its advertisers.

I'm 47 and I'm a part time computer tech. I could go on if you wanted as I've a degree and countless other qualifications, made a great living for myself a few years ago and now have hit bad health.

I've also got two children who now don't live with me anymore but luckily I'm still on good terms with my ex, and I make all my money between my part time work and the SE. I don't live off benefits in case your wondering either (and I don't condone people who need too either just in case anyone is wondering), So I don't think I need your advice thanks very much. I already have more than enough from people older and wiser for this life.

Just how more wrong could your biased opinions have been?

You are entitled to your own views but that doesn't mean they are the only ones which are valid.

And why do I need to justify myself towards somebody I'll never even know?

Sorry for going off thread but I hate people who jump to conclusions.
 
Yes, I was wrong about your age and experience, and for that I apologise.

I'm not sure I understand why you think I'm biased, just because I like the idea of having a national broadcaster that doesn't have to bow to pressure from advertisers ?

I consider the BBC excellent value at 35p per day for 7 TV channels and many radio stations (including local ones). I don't work for the BBC, by the way.

My friend's wife is forever telling me the same as you about the BBC, and it's strange, because every time I phone them I can hear BBC TV in the background :)
 
I first got Sky Digital as both analogue and freeview reception was really poor where I used to live.

When I moved, the previous occupants had Sky installed and they cut out all the terrestrial cabling and aerial for some reason.

As I've got a slate roof there's no way am I going up there to install a new aerial and cabling for Freeview, so it would've cost a far bit for someone else to do it.

Also had a lot of old VHS stuff that needed replacing and decided the twin tuning PVRs were new, buggy and expensive. I managed to get a cheap Sky+ second hand and changed the cable for this without problems as the dish was easily accessible.

I have the Sports during the football season and the Movies during summer and watch both quite a lot when I have them.

One more price raise though and I'll be seriously considering giving an aerial installer my hard earned instead of Sky and selling off Sky+

Oh for the days of £27 for everything Sky had to offer!!
 
Nick_UK said:
I'm not sure I understand why you think I'm biased, just because I like the idea of having a national broadcaster that doesn't have to bow to pressure from advertisers ?

NICK_UK

It was a bad choice of word on my part. What I meant was that you favoured the way the BBC was funded. As I said I haven't a problem with anyones view, it's just not mine.

And if anyone did phone me they would hear either a film on DVD, CD's (probably 80% of the time in the evening) or Planet Rock during the day when I'm working as background music.

I do watch the odd show on C4 and 5, but apart from the odd episode of Top Gear on 2 that's it. 1 and ITV are complete no-nos.

Cheers Ido.
 
Nick_UK said:
My friend's wife is forever telling me the same as you about the BBC, and it's strange, because every time I phone them I can hear BBC TV in the background :)

Maybe it's your friend, not his wife?

No I'm guessing, not jumping to a conclusion.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom