SKY Digital

Shifty

Not sure if proper forum: Friend got sky installed recently through an agent, he had no landline, agent said no problem, we will set it up for u, they did, that was about three weeks ago, been live for about two weeks as card was with agent for about a week. Anyway he changed his mind and wants to cancel, I rang sky for him and they have no record of the account number which agent gave him, (he has a proper sky contract and that, but hasn't signed it, although agent did get him to sign papers earlier) does anyone know what his liabilities (costs) are/ might be to sky or the agent. Sky said he would have to pay the difference btween the subsidised install rate and the full install rate, she said it was €70 but the agent charged him €125. she said he would have to also pay for the full price of the equipment, but he hasn't used it , its all boxed up. any advice on this would be most welcome.

The tax man

You'll get a better response if you post that in the Satellite thread.

Link to Satellite Thread

netwhizkid

I'd advise that the correct forum for this is the Satellite forum You will probably get a better response there.

NB. Mods i advise moving this there.

Regards netwhizkid

byte

That's rather odd. Firstly, subsidised installs arent supposed to be done without connection to active phoneline. Also, why had the agent got the card? It's always posted to subscribers address.

Also, why was it boxed up after being activated? I'm rather confused on this whole setup. He did but didn't sign a contract...

Anyway, legitimately, if he signed the subsidised contract, then he's liable for full payment of the equipment if he cancels within 12 month period. Not sure what the charge is, it may be in the T&C's on the contract.

Anyway, this thread belongs to Hosted > ICDG > Satellite board

Flukey

Don't worry about land lines. If he even considered getting Sky in, the guy needs his head examined. At least he has seen some sense.

sceptre

Flukey wrote:

Don't worry about land lines. If he even considered getting Sky in, the guy needs his head examined. At least he has seen some sense.

Because Chorus and NTL are you know, like, so much better.

Shifty, your friend needs to look at what papers he signed for the agent. if he doesn't know what he signed, he needs to start reading things before he signs them. In the absence of knowing what he signed, no-one here or anywhere else can give you any advice that would be worth any more than a piece of poo on top of a pile of manure.

Like byte said, though, if what he signed is anything akin to or related to the Sky subsidised contract he's liable for rather more than he expected to pay. Sky don't tend to send viewing cards out to people who haven't signed the contract so I would tend to assume he signed it or something similar.

I assume the agent charged him 125 rather than 70 as between him and the agent they were fiddling Sky'd T&Cs by getting the agent to have the Sky 7-day box callback at his/her premises in the absence of a connected phone line wherever your friend was planning to put the box. As I said above though, that's nothing mroe than idle speculation and not worth a hill of beans unless you can tell us what he signed.

Flukey

sceptre wrote:

Because Chorus and NTL are you know, like, so much better.

No Sceptre, because the majority of Satellite providers are a rip-off. Paying through the nose for loads of channels, most of which you will never watch, doesn't make sense. By the time you scan through them all, deciding what to watch, the one you wanted is probably over. Then with Sky, once they get you paying, they start charging even more for so-called extras. Instead of pay per view, you end up with pay per pay per view. Sky Sports ends up being like going to a match and having bought your ticket and gone through the stiles, you find yourself faced with another stiles to pay to go through.

In the same way Sky Movies is supposively pay per view, but once you do, you find you are having to pay more to get some movies. So that is like going to the cinema and buying your ticket at the cash desk and on arriving at the door of the actual screen, being asked to pay again. When Sky say that if you want to join you should call your local operator, it is the type of operator that performs opeartions, namely a brain surgeon, that you should be ringing. As I said, anyone even contemplating getting Sky, needs their head examined.

The 15 or 16 free to view channels that we have will do us fine. We can see still plenty of live sport and see all those movies, even if it takes a bit longer for them to arrive, without having to pay through the nose for them. Maybe you will the see the new releases quicker on them, but even if the free channels are months or years behind, it still means there are new movies coming on them regularly too, so there are new things to see. We don't get the same movies being shown several times a day to us either. You may have movies 24 hours a day, but when the same movies are being shown over and over, it is not really as good as it seems. I don't like being ripped-off or conned and you don't get many more blatant rip-offs and cons than Sky, so I would not go near them. I've got more sense.

sceptre

Flukey wrote:

No Sceptre, because the majority of Satellite providers are a rip-off.

I'm only aware of one satellite provider available in this country. That'd be Sky.

Paying through the nose for loads of channels, most of which you will never watch, doesn't make sense.

I pay through the nose, as you put it for a picture and sound that I can rely upon to be there when I switch on the TV. I didn't get that with my previous supplier.

Then with Sky, once they get you paying, they start charging even more for so-called extras. Instead of pay per view, you end up with pay per pay per view. Sky Sports ends up being like going to a match and having bought your ticket and gone through the stiles, you find yourself faced with another stiles to pay to go through.

I've never bought any of them, hence I don't care. However, Sky Sports is like a season ticket where you get to see most of the matches but not others unless you buy a specific ticket for that match. I haven't seen a full soccer game since 2002 so it wouldn't bother me really but some people really like their soccer. Personally I like reading about it the day after.

In the same way Sky Movies is supposively pay per view,

No it isn't. It's a premium (and premium priced unfortunately) addon channel. Not pay per view, which would depend on an item specifically being pay per view. There are pay per view movies on the box office channels of course but they're different again.

So that is like going to the cinema and buying your ticket at the cash desk and on arriving at the door of the actual screen, being asked to pay again.

Poor analogy. It's like having a season ticket at the UCI but having to pay extra for some movies they show earlier than the normal run. When they hit the normal run you get to see them with your season ticket. Ditto with the cable companies.

When Sky say that if you want to join you should call your local operator, it is the type of operator that performs opeartions, namely a brain surgeon, that you should be ringing.

I called this bloke with a local install office who came and put a dish up. I don't eat an apple a day and not get the expected results.

The 15 or 16 free to view channels that we have will do us fine.

That's fine and dandy if you can actually get terrestrial reception for RTE. Some of us can't. And I actually like some of the stuff on Sky One and E4. I'm sure it'll do you fine because you told us but "us" is a bit assuming if you mean anyone else, innit?

We can see still plenty of live sport and see all those movies, even if it takes a bit longer for them to arrive, without having to pay through the nose for them.

I actually couldn't give a monkeys about seeing either of them on the telly as a general rule. It's not why I have a TV and it's not why I pay someone monthly to let me watch it.

Maybe you will the see the new releases quicker on them

Or even a lot slower if one visits one's local cinema on a regular or semi-regular basis.

I see where you're coming from: you don't see the point in paying anyone for your televisual pleasure. Grand but it's a poor argument posed when you assume you know why I do. Sky are overpriced, sure, like broadband and pub peanuts, but from the point of view of a few people they, like the cable companies offer something not available via free terrestrial reception that some people want. For some people who want whatever it is they want from this, Sky are a better option, for some it's their locally available cable solution. Depending on your point of view you might say that it's a better solution for the money than drinking it or buying a lottery ticket or whatever people tend to spend their leftover money on when they've bnought enough wine, water and cheese for the week.


If you'd like a discussion on non-subscription telly versus subscription telly, grand, start a new thread in the TV forum and I'll troop along. I don't see the point in further throwing Shifty's thread off-topic as he's essentially asking for legal-ish advice from people who know something about what his friend might have signed and how to deal with it rather than a debate on whether he or anyone else should be paying for it or should consider paying for it in the first place. Unfortunately I've contributed to that tangent.

garred

Agree totally, live in an apartment at the mo so can only get NTL. Had Sky previously and to compare the 2 is like comparing Ronaldo to Vinny Arkins. NTL service is crap. Never had problem with sky the 4 years was with them. Firstly you get much better service, more channels for your standard installation and a better range. My Ntl box constantly freezes when watching progs, FFS I thought only computers do that, next thing you know it will have a virus.

dmeehan

indie installer offered me a sky box with no landline connection. he said he would leave it set up in his shop until the call back happened and then transfer it to my house

Shifty

thanks for the replies, like you said I will try find out what he signed with the agent, I saw an original copy of the contract which he had yesterday, all boxes were marked with an x for him to sign. The agent is hounding him for bank details to initiate the direct debit process. The account number and the landline number which the agent provided were hand written on the contract. The viewing card was posted to my friend but the agent told him to forward it to his office to be activated. He did this and then it was installed and set up. after a couple of days, he changed his mind and disconnected the digibox etc and packed it all back into the box. He was calling the agent this afternoon to see if he could come to some arrangement about the situation, I haven't spoke to him since. Thanks again... (hope i'm in the right forum)

Tony

This could be very tricky as the agent cannot now use that box for a subsidised install elsewhere.

Shifty wrote:

thanks for the replies, like you said I will try find out what he signed with the agent,)

Guy:Incognito

Flukey wrote:

The 15 or 16 free to view channels that we have will do us fine. .

I assume you dont have your own private system where tv is free. NTL charge €19.50 (i think thats the current rate) a month for those "free to air" channels.