Is There A Sky Subscribers Lobby Group ?

garrettod

Hi

I'm starting to get really pi$$ed off with Sky & wondered if anyone knew of a Sky Subscribers Lobby Group / Action Group ?

Several things are really starting to get to me about Sky TV, who are now abusing what is little more than a monoply situatio when it comes to the likes of Sports events etc.

- Regular Subscription Increases. I think we have seen an increase just about every year, normally effective from September each year. Granted, this year my increase is only €1.50 per month, but I'm already paying them $61 per month !

- Further near rip off costs when you want a second Sky TV box in your house, so as to permit the family the chance to watch a different channel etc

- The lack of Ch4, Ch5 & ITV from the channel line up. Also, the lack of the various BBC channels from the EPG (only bbc1 & 2 seem to be available). I think you can get all of these, or nearly all of them without paying more than the standard charge on NTL etc

- Setanta Sports going on NTL for "free" but Sky subscribers likely to have to pay for the same service

- Subscibers such as myself, who have been with Sky over 10 years and paying them plenty of dosh without a peep getting nothing back, such as a free months viewing now and again etc while the promotions for new subscribers continue endlessly.


:mad:

denissilver

look up the start of the satillite thread to learn how to tune in all the extra bbc channels

ShaneOC

I have a vague recollection of a group set up to lobby Sky but I have not heard anything from or about them in ages.

I agree that they could improve some aspects of their service specifically

- Listing all of the BBC channels on the EPG (other channels is good but no use to Sky+ users)

- Sort out the ITV/Channel 4 issue. We all know about rights problems for UTV but what about Channel 4?

- Not specifically Sky's fault but they could (and should) develop the technology to allow E4 to be interactive and switch to the correct adverts to enable E4 to be interactive here.

BrianD

Setanta Sports going on NTL for "free" but Sky subscribers likely to have to pay for the same service

Why should you not have to pay for it?

BTW this topic does bring up the problems that may occur with a delivery platform that is not regulated in this country.

Originally posted by BrianD
BTW this topic does bring up the problems that may occur with a delivery platform that is not regulated in this country.

Well in fairness now Brian when comparing the regulation authorities in the UK with those in ROI, the latter are sadly lacking...

Whats this the term for Comreg is over in Ireland offline or on the Broadband forum??
Ah yes
Comwreck

I'd hate to think what Sky would get away with even more if they just had an Irish regulator to deal with.
Irish regulation is not the mana from heaven it's made out to be.

Gadgie

Originally posted by BrianD
Why should you not have to pay for it?

I think what the original poster meant was that Setanta will be available as part of the basic NTL package, wheras Sky subscribers will have to pay extra for it.

BTW this topic does bring up the problems that may occur with a delivery platform that is not regulated in this country.

FYI Comreg would be responsible for regulating Sky in this country.

Mossy Monk

Originally posted by Glenn
I think what the original poster meant was that Setanta will be available as part of the basic NTL package, wheras Sky subscribers will have to pay extra for it.

to be fair no one knows how it will turn out on Sky yet

mike2084

Wouldn't an ESB Customer Lobby Group be better than a Sky one at the moment, considering there going to hold the country to ransom again? Speaking of that, could we claim refunds from Sky for the time during the impending blackouts that we won't be able to use our subscriptions :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Michael Walsh
Speaking of that, could we claim refunds from Sky for the time during the impending blackouts that we won't be able to use our subscriptions :rolleyes:

LoL I've a generator so I guess I won't be joining the class action

BrianD

I know Sky subscribers will have to pay for Setanta but the poster was implying that they should have it for free on Sky just because NTL have it.

In regards to regulation, I know the ComReg would in theory be responsible for Sky if it agreed to be regulated here. It is a problem that so many many Irish TV households are now signed up to Sky and there are no legal controls. Sky can up the price if they like, drop channels etc and there is no mechanism for the customers interests to be represented.

garrettod

Hi BrianD

Sorry if my original post was not entirely clear. I used the term "free" in the hope people would have known what I meant .... Setanta Sports Channel is to be part of the basic NTL package, following several recent reports in the papers etc.

However, it appears Sky TV are seeking to charge a further sub in order to view the same channel. I don't see why they can't pay Setanta something from their existing income, rather than try to get even more money out of us >?

DMC

The thing to point out is that NTL or Chorus are not competition to Setanta. They are gamekeepers. They operate their transmission system, and don't have channels to compete with Setanta.

Whereas Sky are both gamekeepers and poachers; they have the keys and the crowbars. They provide their own sports channels and a transmission method. So that's why Setanta could always have gotten a better deal with NTL, all the while BSkyB have their own extremely successful sports channels, and they wont be rushing to get Setanta on board.

But Setanta would be foolish to not go on Sky. They have a relationship at the moment with the 2 PPV channels, so I would expect something to appear on Sky, albeit not the same as whats on NTL.

BrianD

I don't see why they can't pay Setanta something from their existing income, rather than try to get even more money out of us >?

I think that is the problem!

Tony

I think the real problem is lack of competition, too few players in the market who do not have access to the same channels.

Originally posted by BrianD


Sky can up the price if they like, drop channels etc and there is no mechanism for the customers interests to be represented.

garrettod

Hi

Agree entirely, as such ... we need some sort of lobby / action group, kinda like a trade union for staff, or like a Government appointed agency to ensure the people are not entirely screwed over

To be Frank

Sky digital is a service provided by BSkyB.
They spent millions, nay billions setting it up with satelites,ground stations, software and as good as free digi boxes.

People have some cheek in the light of that demanding that they shouldn't charge what they like for it.
They will charge what the market will bear and like all things if one can't afford it then one won't have it.
Thats the fact of the matter when no one else is prepared to take the gamble that Sky did to enter this market.

The reason they have a near monopoly is quite simply nobody touches them on quality of service,availability and choice of channels.

Nobody else has bothered to spend to enter the market and consequently kudus to those at Sky for reaping the reward of having entered it themselves at a great initial cost.

Round Cable

Originally posted by Earthman
They spent millions, nay billions setting it up with satelites,ground stations, software and as good as free digi boxes.

I thought it was Eircom that provides the money (subsidy) for the box not sky.

mickeyboymel

Originally posted by Round Cable
I thought it was Eircom that provides the money (subsidy) for the box not sky.

What??? You are joking,right?

Round Cable

Originally posted by mickeyboymel
What??? You are joking,right?

No

But I'm not sure they do anymore, but they did in the early days of Sky Digital. Eircom's reasoning: People who would get/have Sky would keep their phone services with Eircom, while those with NTL would avail of cheaper calls and so eroding their business.

The price in the Republic was not subsidised, as BiB had no plans to launch a service there. This meant the Irish had to pay more, over £300 (Sterling). Worse, when Sky launched their free box offer in the UK, to compete with OnDigital, it did not alter their Irish prices, as it had no Digital competitors in the Republic. The monthly fees were about 10% lower than the UK, but this did not compensate for the huge startup costs. And to cap it all, the service did not include the BBC channels, plus Channels 4 and 5, which UK viewers received.

Fair enough, Irish viewers were not paying the UK licence fee, but given that these channels had been available via other suppliers for years it seemed rather odd.

So whilst it was very common by the year 2000 for Sky minidishes to be seen across the UK, it was a rare sight in the Republic of Ireland. People generally received multichannel TV by cable, or by MMDS, a microwave-based system, relying on local transmitters and wire-mesh receivers. Some used analogue satellite, but again, as this did not supply the UK "terrestrials" (apart from Channel 5), it was not particularly popular.

In the Spring of 2000, the "free" box offer was finally launched. Still having no interactive services in the pipeline, the interactive subsidy was not used. Instead, the Irish former state-owned phone company, Eircom, provided subsidy. This is presumably because defectors to cable companies would get their phone service too. Getting Sky would make them more likely to stick with Eircom for their phone.

mickeyboymel

Aha I see, never heard of that before,but I am sure that no longer applies as the box will callback from any phone provider not just Eircom.I suppose this was before the days of Eircom's wholesale selling to other providers.

Tom Dunne

Originally posted by Earthman
To be Frank
...
The reason they have a near monopoly is quite simply nobody touches them on quality of service,availability and choice of channels.

Nobody else has bothered to spend to enter the market and consequently kudus to those at Sky for reaping the reward of having entered it themselves at a great initial cost.

I'm with Frank, er, Earthman on this one. I was one of those poor unfortunates that had to tolerate the misery that was Chorus. I won't go off on my usual Chorus bashing rant, but the day Sky became available, I jumped immediately.

Chorus and from what I hear, NTL, appear to be lazy and incompetent. If they actually gave a damn, they would have responded to the threat from Sky by instilling a little bit of care into their customer support staff, they would have ensured their digital signal could actually be seen, in short, they would have competed.

garrettod, could I suggest you sign up with Chorus for a while. Believe me, it will really make you appreciate Sky.

freetoair

As another former Chorus customer I think Sky are fantastic, but I feel this price hike is just one price hike too many for me. Maybe the market can bare it but I can't !!
I'm cancelling my subscription from today. I agree with the first poster, I'm sure if enough people did the same as me then their customer relations department would altert the sales department that the market has been pushed too far.


But one great thing about Sky over Chorus, after cancelling I'll still have all the FTA channels plus the FTV channels on my UK FTV card...and I can re-subscribe anytime I like for as short a period as I like so the kids can have Sky again for Christmas!!

Capt'n Midnight

I want the following EPG options in services - that you can turn or off as needed

a) Hide channels I can't recieve
b) reassign the BOX OFFICE button to toggle between the last two channels
c) have "other channels" assigned to 000-0999 in the channel line up (or even 00-09 )
d) display frequency / polarization / FEC when you look at the signal strength (handy for setting up second box)
e) auto search for new channels not on the EPG.

None of this will ever happen - because it means you could skip past the Marketing of subscription channels

garrettod

Originally posted by Earthman
To be Frank

Sky digital is a service provided by BSkyB.
They spent millions, nay billions setting it up with satelites,ground stations, software and as good as free digi boxes.

People have some cheek in the light of that demanding that they shouldn't charge what they like for it.
They will charge what the market will bear and like all things if one can't afford it then one won't have it.
Thats the fact of the matter when no one else is prepared to take the gamble that Sky did to enter this market.

The reason they have a near monopoly is quite simply nobody touches them on quality of service,availability and choice of channels.

Nobody else has bothered to spend to enter the market and consequently kudus to those at Sky for reaping the reward of having entered it themselves at a great initial cost.

Hi Earthman

Some very good points made, in the above post.

However, there is a difference between those that take risks, getting a reward & those who abuse a monoply position getting away with murder

I feel Sky go too far with Irish residents

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Earthman
To be Frank

Sky digital is a service provided by BSkyB.
They spent millions, nay billions setting it up with satelites,ground stations, software and as good as free digi boxes.
...................
The reason they have a near monopoly is quite simply nobody touches them on quality of service,availability and choice of channels.

Nobody else has bothered to spend to enter the market and consequently kudus to those at Sky for reaping the reward of having entered it themselves at a great initial cost.

What about BSB ? - they didn't exploit the same loopholes as and had tougher standards to adhere to...

SKY is a lock in system - you can watch anything you want as long as it is on sky - don't forget they don't own the ASTRA satellites - they did not develop most of the infrastructure behind it. re the EPG - nice one - reminds me of DOS 5 - "DOS ain't done, till Lotus won't run..."

Originally posted by garrettod
However, there is a difference between those that take risks, getting a reward & those who abuse a monoply position getting away with murder

I feel Sky go too far with Irish residents

Yeah, they are a monopoly of sorts in that theres nothing comes near what they do.
But as regards exploitation,It doesn't pan out that way or else they wouldn't be winning customers from chorus every day.

But then I 'spose chorus ain't what you call competition...
If you want a better example of a rip off to be honest its them not sky.

Tony

apparently irish law prevented sky from subsidising their own product so I think that was the reason Eircom were brought on board.

Xcom2

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

a)Hide channels I can't recieve
b) reassign the BOX OFFICE button to toggle between the last two channels
e) auto search for new channels not on the EPG.

These three would be very handy!

G

Richard

Round Cable wrote:

No

But I'm not sure they do anymore, but they did in the early days of Sky Digital. Eircom's reasoning: People who would get/have Sky would keep their phone services with Eircom, while those with NTL would avail of cheaper calls and so eroding their business.

Quote:

The price in the Republic was not subsidised, as BiB had no plans to launch a service there. This meant the Irish had to pay more....

That looks familiar!

Dear Round Cable,

Next time you repost part of an article of mine, please credit me! You didn't say where you'd taken the text from, or who'd written it.

For the record, although I wrote it, it appears on Mike McGonagle's excellent website 'The TV Room'. See http://thetvroom.com/tvrplus/s-tv-features-uk-tv-ireland.shtml for the whole thing. It is now a bit out of date.

Cheers,

Richard

garrettod

Hi Everyone,

Are we losing focus here a little I've wondered & the answer I have come up with is Yes, we have.

As I see it, Sky TV have a monoply situation & as such, should be regulated. How can any one single entity control the majority of sporting events & new movie events & be permitted a free hand ?

Were this an issue where one party controllled such things as the supply of oil, milk etc there is now way we would permit the controlling party a free hand. However, because Sky provides a "non-esential" service, they get away with everything except murder imho.

Taking a simple example in support of the above comments, consider this please:

* Sky TV have successfully managed to increase their subscriptions without any opposition every September for the last several years. This is while the company returned good profits, which might contribute / cover their initial investment

* Sky TV have dropped various services they had previously offered under different (Sky) packages, without dropping their monthly rentals. A recent example is the reduction in Movie Channels from 10 to 9 (excluding the oldies on Sky Cinema or whatever it's called this week )

People have previously posted to this forum, suggesting I consider subscribbing to the likes of Chorus for example. However, the simple point behind my principal arguement is that I do not have this choice. Competition brings stability of pricing coupled with competing services, assuming price fixing does not exist - with Sky as the only Satellite service worth mentioning in the Irish market, coupled with either NTL or Chorus .... there is no competition & in the absence of such, there should be a regulator.

BTW, as a long time Sky subscriber who has paid them thousands, over the years & without a problem I ask, why do the potential new subscribers get offers such as free Sky Sports for 6 months, while existing subscribers get nothing for their loyalty ? ... I fear the answer is simple, they don't have to give me anything, they just have to increase the direct debit every month !

BrianD

Excellent post Garrettod. Sky have a monopoly in the DSAT delivery platform and are fast becoming the key player in digital TV delivery. One wonders how long it will take Sky Digital to become the No. 1 delivery system in Ireland. The Sky subscriber magazine now has a greater circulation than that favourite Irish institution, the RTE Guide.

At the same time, Sky has refused to be regulated in this country. Though recent reports suggest that NTL have slipped out of ComReg's stable as well. I haven't researched this so perhaps somebody who has can confirm it. Sky Digital is also located outside of the state and it's portfolio of channel don't have to comply with many of the broadcasting rules and regs we have here e.g the new childrens advertising codes.

The platform offers excellent opportunities for a small channel who wants to get on-air and reach an Irish and U.K. audience. At the same time, the price of EPG and encryption are making it more and more difficult for these channels to do so.

If you check out the Sky corporate reports, you can see that their business approach is very similar to that of a mobile phone company. They have become fixated with average revenue per user. They have targets set on both subscriber revenue and interactive revenues. This is the driving force behind all decisions - the ARPU and not the viewing choice offered. The keen offers are there to get the new people onboard and loyalty counts for nothing (just like our friends in the mobile phone co's!). They have factored in a certain amount of 'churn' but they have probably calculated that dropping the odd channel won't lose too many subscribers once you continue to get good reception and the key channels (many terrestrial ones) you'll stay with them.

Really we need to see more competition in digital TV delivery in this country. The CATV and MMDS co's are financially strapped and they'll never adequately serve our dispersed populations and they have to install and upgrade expensive infrastructure. Until they can offer a substantially better overall package, Sky will have the edge. Personally. I would prefer a single cable with TV, phone and BB coming into the house (then again thats putting all your eggs in the one basket).

The government have dithered on a freeview type system and now that they are making some movement on the issue the Eurocrats have intervened with "issues". This dithering by the Government will cost Irish TV broadcasting dearly in the future and will ultimately affect consumer choice and competition in the digital tv delivery market.

I wonder would Sky Digital actually listen to a User Group or would it be a nice PR exercise?

jaggiebunnet

Sky do not have a monopoly. There is nothing to stop other satellite companies setting themselves up as rivals. Would they do well? Probably not, but that does not make it a monopoly.

garrettod

garrettod wrote:

How can any one single entity control the majority of sporting events & new movie events & be permitted a free hand ?

As you know or should know,they don't contol them all, countries can and do have events considered important enough listed for terrestrial viewing.
E.U legislation provides for that-it is in effect regulation.
As regards the rest, they bid for them mostly and thats the way open to all.
You should take it up with the rights holders who put the events up for auction.

Sky TV have successfully managed to increase their subscriptions without any opposition every September for the last several years. This is while the company returned good profits, which might contribute / cover their initial investment

Again this is an over simplification.
Sky are a private company and charge what the market can bear, it's their service and as long as people are willing to pay for it, it will continue to rise in price from time to time untill such rises cause a drop in revenue.
When there is a company willing to invest in a satelite alternative and customers willing to be supplied by them, then that might change.
It would all depend on the customers willingness to change or go with the alternative though.
History has shown us that an alternative already lost out to Sky [BSB] and merged with them.
That was because not enough customers switched or went with the alternative.
That was in the early days of sky digital, and at this stage Sky digital is so embedded, it would probably not be financially feasable for another digital satelite alternative to emerge.
That said,it would or should be possible for the E.U to intervene where there is a strong player like sky.
There are precedents , for example where Eircom have been forced to provide their infrastructure to alternatives.
Sky could in theory be forced to do the same, but It would, I think involve a long legal battle.

BTW, as a long time Sky subscriber who has paid them thousands, over the years & without a problem I ask, why do the potential new subscribers get offers such as free Sky Sports for 6 months, while existing subscribers get nothing for their loyalty ? ... I fear the answer is simple, they don't have to give me anything, they just have to increase the direct debit every month !

Thats marketing for you, you could always leave and take up one of their please come back offers in a few months!

Its the same with banks, they offer their lowest interest rates to their new customers as do most business's to entice new customers.

jaggiebunnet

I would disagree on the Eircom point - The infrastructure for Eircom was put in place by the Government. It is part of the remit of Eircom to provide carraige on this infrastructure before they could become a private company. The same as all state owned telco's/electric/etc have been required to provide carriage over the Government created infrastructure. Created by the people tax money in otherwards.

There was no such provision made by any Government for Sky.

BrianD

jaggiebunnet wrote:

Sky do not have a monopoly. There is nothing to stop other satellite companies setting themselves up as rivals. Would they do well? Probably not, but that does not make it a monopoly.

They do have a monopoly position in the DSAT market. Yes, it is technically a free market but the barriers to entry are so high that it is difficult for any new players to enter.

jaggiebunnet

BrianD wrote:

They do have a monopoly position in the DSAT market. Yes, it is technically a free market but the barriers to entry are so how that it is difficult for any new players to enter.

Indeed they are difficult, but this is not due to any monopoly that sky has on the market.

jaggiebunnet

jaggiebunnet wrote:

I would disagree on the Eircom point - The infrastructure for Eircom was put in place by the Government. It is part of the remit of Eircom to provide carraige on this infrastructure before they could become a private company.

I thought the E.U countries own the frequencies which Sky or other digital satelite providers use.
While thats not infrastructure, it is leverage.
E.U law could very easily be adjusted to provide for other carriers to share sky's infrastructure.
Such a move though would be about as high on E.U legislators list as outlawing christmas.

BrianD wrote:

They do have a monopoly position in the DSAT market. Yes, it is technically a free market but the barriers to entry are so how that it is difficult for any new players to enter.

Errrr
I would have thought that we are back to the old chessnut of the monopoly of rights holders here and not that of satelite providers.
Foreign providers could easly serve the Irish and UK market with programmes in English with a simple tweaking of their footprint.
Rights holders won't allow them to do this (just like they are being used as a baseball bat in the UTV/Sky digital ROI situation)

Therefore it's more a problem caused by the greediness of satelite rights holders than anything else.
Sky digital are only a symptom of the problem, they are not the central problem.

BrianD

Let's clarify this. Sky Digital effectively have a monopoly position in the market because they have become the only realistic option for consumers to choice, the barriers to entry are high for any new entrants plus their critical mass will make it difficult for a new player to attract subscribers and channels. Perhaps describing them as the dominant DSAT player might be more appropriate though what other realistic options do DSAT consumers have?

In theory, if another DSAT provider came along the should be able to get roughly the same channel line ups (as there should be no programme rights issues). I am not talking about forigh DSAT co's tweaking their footprint (I don't believe that this is possible but if it was) but another Sky Digital set-up serving Ireland and the UK. Sky in their dominant position could probably bully some channels into exclusive DSAT distribution rights.

I don't see programme rights as being the central or key issue at all. We are discussing competition and consumer issues within the DSAT delivery platform. Programme rights issues may affect channel line ups of competing DSAT packages making one more attractive than the other (if there was competition). I think it is periperal to the issues raised in this post.

Tony

BrianD wrote:

They do have a monopoly position in the DSAT market. Yes, it is technically a free market but the barriers to entry are so high that it is difficult for any new players to enter.

#

Difficult but not impossible, whereas it is impossible to enter the cable market in Ireland because the country is divided into exclusive franchise areas as arranged by the infamous Minister Ray Burke

BrianD

BrianD wrote:

Let's clarify this. Sky Digital effectively have a monopoly position in the market because they have become the only realistic option for consumers to choice, the barriers to entry are high for any new entrants plus their critical mass will make it difficult for a new player to attract subscribers and channels. Perhaps describing them as the dominant DSAT player might be more appropriate though what other realistic options do DSAT consumers have?

They have the option not to subscribe if the price exceeds their desire to view.
laws of supply and demand really.
Customers also are free agents,and are free to move to any satelite competitior that may start up.
Fact of the matter is, people would be slow to move and ergo nobody wants to invest in the risk that people would be too lazy or couldnt be bothered moving.
That implies one of two things or a combination of both:
Customer satisfaction and / or customer laziness.
The former being the more dominant attribute as people are more satisfied than dissatisfied with a product if they are willing to keep it despite the price rising.

I don't see programme rights as being the central or key issue at all. We are discussing competition and consumer issues within the DSAT delivery platform. Programme rights issues may affect channel line ups of competing DSAT packages making one more attractive than the other (if there was competition). I think it is periperal to the issues raised in this post.

Ah come on now Brian, you can't defend the manipulative way programme rights holders are used/and use themselves to protect their products prices resulting in the lack of UTV on Sky in the ROI while at the same time be rating Sky for being the beneficiary.
It's also quite valid to raise the programme rights holders role in the restrictions on other DSAT bringing competition to the ROI market.
They already have the scale and the technology to compete with Sky here if they were allowed.
Thats very on topic and not peripheral at all.

Flukey

If you want an action group for Sky, the best thing is withdraw from it. I would never get Sky Sports/Movies etc. I have more sense. They run that ad that if you want Sky Sports, contact your local operator. It should be a slightly different kind of operator, one who carries out operations, namely a brain surgeon. Sky is a complete rip off. They have destroyed television. Time was you could see lots of sports on TV, now Sky have taken a lot of it off and to see it you have to pay through the nose. Their coverage is good, but if it is so good, why are they afraid to compete against the other channels? They do not compete, not really. They buy up the rights, which is not really competing based on their product. Their idea of competing is like saying "We will all have a race, but only the one who pays the most can run in it." Why don't they really compete and let other channels show the programmes too? Then we would have the choice of who to watch and if, as they say, their coverage is the best, we would all choose to watch theirs and so they could attract the best advertisers and still make money.

Then, having got your subscription, they start raising it to crazy rates. On top of that they introduce what they call "Pay for view" events. These channels are already pay for view, so they are really pay for pay for view events. It is a bit like going to a match and having paid through the first stile, you find yourself facing another one or going to a movie and having bought your ticket, when you come to the door of the actual cinema, where the guy takes your ticket, he charges you to actually go in. How can people be so stupid to do this? Then they ask you to get a friend to sign up to Sky! Why on earth would you get a friend deliberately ripped off?

Ok, they have poured a lot of money into sport, but as a result gone are the days when a man and his son(s) could go on a Saturday afternoon to support their local club, unless of course he is a CEO of some company or something. English soccer is suffering as the young players are not getting the chance to get in and play for the clubs because all of the foreign imports. Maybe the games are better to look at - if you can afford to pay in or are stupid enough to subscribe to Sky Sports - but is it really doing the sport any good? It has taken the heart of the game out of it in many ways. It is more a business than a sport. Go see a match in Croke Park and you will see more heart and passion, love of the game and players really playing for the love of the jersey and the people, than you will see at a Premiership game. That is what sport is all about. Some English soccer club managers have actually brought teams to GAA matches to show them the passion that these amateurs play with and requesting of their players that they do the same.

So if you want to see sport on TV and not be ripped off the action to take is to cancel your subscription with Sky. If enough people do that, that would be the best action that could be taken. We all remember the uproar when the FAI went to sell their soul and indeed sell out the fans to Sky. Only weeks after the high of the World Cup and the huge reception the teams got the FAI blew it. I just happened to be working for a brief time next door to the FAI HQ at the time. There was a sudden increase in the amount of times they left by the back door. We used to jeer them a bit saying things like "You said there was nothing you could do about the Sky deal. Do you not have a shredder?" Or "We just looked in your bins and we couldn't see the Sky deal anywhere!" Eventually something was done about it. That is the only way Sky could be brought to heel, but unfortunately there are too many people out there too stupid to do so and are continuing to be ripped off.

jaggiebunnet

Flukey - get off your high horse.

I have sky sports and feel that I get a very good deal from it. Even better before Scottish football got greedy and ended up off the air. But still, the coverage of the premiership is unsurpassed. The new highlights package will be as great as the choose any game option on the champions league last year.

if you don't like it then don't subscribe. Simple really.

As for it taking it off terrestial tv. It was never on there mate. Before sky you got a live game on tv once in a blue moon. The highlights were rotten and most of the coverage so poor that they missed goals, incidents etc.

Flukey

I know there wasn't the frequency and the quality, but at least you didn't have to pay through the nose for them and leave yourself open to further rip-offs. The quality of the terrestial coverage has improved since those days. I am a sports fan and there is more than enough on terrestial TV to keep me happy. I've seen some of SKy's coverage and yes, it is better than some of the other channels. But as I said, if Sky's coverage is so good, why are they afraid to compete?

just two points in relation to Flukeys post:
1. It's the sporting clubs/associations that have facilitated the lack of some sports on terrestrial TV by selling to the highest bidder.
They have the steering wheel there and no doubt feel they are entitled to the money.
2.The customer is always right. If he doesn't leave sky then his complaints are a little hollow.
The pricing complaints are valid, but those are the terms of the product provider, the customer is satisfied with the terms or the pricing if he is paying for it in my view.
Theres no other way to interpret the customers actions.
His/her wants( digital television ) are outweighing any dissatisfaction with the price.
There are of course signs that Sky digitals growth is slowing but it is only when you see the "churn" growing( the numbers leaving sky ) that you will see an end to anything other than inflation related rises in your subscription.

Flukey

I know the clubs are taking the money and you can't blame them for that, but that is part of my point, that the game itself has lost some of its character. As to the customers, people are going to pay to view the channels if they have no choice, which is the one thing Sky has taken away. Then having got the people in, they started asking for more money and introducing the pay for pay for view events. Like I keep saying, Sky are not competing and while Rupert Murdoch is laughing his way to the bank, the people are losing out. There are enough people there to keep them in business even though a lot of people have cancelled their subscriptions. I know everyone pulling out is not going to happen or either is Sky letting other channels show matches at the same time. That is the one power monopolies have. They have that element of blackmail over their customers. Unfortunately it is not going to change for the forseeable future, but I am not going to sign my name on a subscription whatever happens.

jaggiebunnet

I don't think it is strictly true that people will pay if that have no choice. I mean next season there will be no way for me to see the Scottish league unless I subscribe to Setanta.

Being Scottish this is a pain, but if the cost was reasonable then I would. However the cost, not to mention the service, is ridiculous and there is no way I will subscribe to them.

My ideal world of course would be the SPL back on bbc scotland, the premiership on rte and just use by FTA card. However, this is never gonna happen and I think the quality given by sky sports is well worth the 18 or whatever euro a month I pay.

Flukey

jaggiebunnet wrote:

I mean next season there will be no way for me to see the Scottish league unless I subscribe to Setanta.

That is my point. Unless it does go back on the BBC, you can't see the games without having to pay through the nose for it. This should not be done to Britain's national sports. It should be the right of people to be able to see them on terrestial television. At least the FA Cup is protected, but there should be some Premiership games on free to view television too, not exclusively on the satellites.