# Sky price increases 1st Sept. 2007



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

http://www.sky.com/Assets/PDF/StaticFiles/1459910.pdf


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

My God, mine's unchanged - what are the odds!


----------



## chrisd (Oct 24, 2003)

TCM2007 said:


> My God, mine's unchanged - what are the odds!


1 in,er, 1 ?


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

They're really tightening up the gap between a 2-Mix package and the full 6-Mix package, trying to make people think it's hardly worth bothering having only 2 or 4. The price of the 6 mix is only £3 or £4 more than the 2 mix.

I noticed my price didn't change either .... £0 freesat 

I'm trying to ask Sky (via email but not finding a suitable address) if there's any way of having a custom mix where I pay £1 per channel, which makes sense for the 7-10 non-premium channels I'm interested in.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 24, 2003)

b166er said:


> They're really tightening up the gap between a 2-Mix package and the full 6-Mix package, trying to make people think it's hardly worth bothering having only 2 or 4. The price of the 6 mix is only £3 or £4 more than the 2 mix.


That's the whole reason why they do that. I don't particularly want the movies but for the extra six quid a month I may aswell.

Robbers!

I'd much rather just have sky one, sky sports 1 and 2, news24, e4, and a couple of discovery-type ones, and nothing else, but pay way less a month.

I don't give a rats ass about the music channels, or all the other news channels or the other rubbish ones (yes community channel and the like, i'm talking to you)

Robbers!


----------



## mrtickle (Aug 26, 2001)

chrisd said:


> I'd much rather just have sky one, sky sports 1 and 2, news24, e4, and a couple of discovery-type ones, and nothing else, but pay way less a month.


Sounds like you want just 2 Mixes then - Variety and Knowledge. Hopefully you're already on that but if not you're throwing away money. Sky are squeezing down how much you'll save but you should downgrade out of principle!



> I don't give a rats ass about the music channels, or all the other news channels or the other rubbish ones (yes community channel and the like, i'm talking to you)


Bit harsh - most of the news channels and definitely the community channel are FTA unencrypted and not part of any channel package!


----------



## chrisd (Oct 24, 2003)

mrtickle said:


> Bit harsh - most of the news channels and definitely the community channel are FTA unencrypted and not part of any channel package!


OK, so they were bad examples, but you know what I meant. I'm getting say 150 channels or so, but out of those I'd be happy only receiving say 10-15 of em.

I'm on the whole shebang - every channel (apart from the individual channels like MUTV, NASN etc). But Sports, movies, HD, you name it I got it. 

the 2 mixes doesnt include the sports as far as i know, so the min I could have it for would be £34/month. Then for another 9 quid I can have all the mixes and the movies and sport, so I just go for the max. Oh, and the tenner HD subscription (which I think is a rip-off, I already bought a HDTV and their HD set top box so why the heck do they charge the tenner on top).

Like I said, Robbers.

Unfortunately there's no one else that can offer the same service so we're all a captive audience.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Its an odd strategy to make the basic pay channels even more expensive when they have just in effect slashed the cost of FreeSatFromSky in half through the below deal where you also get a couple of their Mixes free for 6 months but are under no obligation to continue on at the end of the free period.

£75 for a Sky minidish and box fully installed with 2 Mixes and viewing card can't be bad going, even though its still more expensive than a Freeview box. But then my Mum lives in a Freeview blackspot that would need a £200 conventional aerial upgrade to fix and she's not in to E4, TMF, FTN or The Hits but rather in to Bloomberg TV, CNN, Euronews, France 24, Russia Today etc and Pop and Tiny Pop for the grandchildren.

All of these are free on Freesat but are not even available on Freeview.........

See www.dixons.co.uk/martprd/editorial/Sky Pay Once Watch Forever/?int=hp-promos SKY Pay Once

Currently listed as being in stock, even though its been out of stock for a while.

I got mine a couple of weeks ago at Asda Slough, who had about 40 in stock at that time. So if you have a large Asda near by you can also cut out the delivery fee. Not all Asdas have this product though, so phone first to check. Only large branches of Currys have had them in stock. They did have some at Currys Guildford and Currys Epsom when I enquired a coupld of weeks ago.

Don't forget that Sky+ is now free with a basic channel package and I bet a lot of people have downgraded to a basic 2 Mic channel package as a result. I think this is the knee jerk reaction by Sky but they may live to regret it if more people then just desubscribe altogether.......


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

One of the things that winds me up a bit, is that there are some channels that are free on freeview (E4, More4, abc1) but they're not free on Sky freesat.

Considering that Film4 is free on Sky and Freeview, that makes the decision to keep E4 and More4 part of a Sky "package" even more bizarre.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

b166er said:


> One of the things that winds me up a bit, is that there are some channels that are free on freeview (E4, More4, abc1) but they're not free on Sky freesat.


This is because Sky have Channel 4 locked in to an encryption deal on their platform that is too expensive for them to buy out of before the present encryption contract ends in 2008. At that point Channel 4 will demand that More4 and E4 go FTA on Sky but remain in the Sky EPG along with Ch4 (currently FTV so needing a Sky viewing card but not requiring a Sky sub). If Sky refuse to play ball they just take Channel 4 off air on Sky. Now who is that going to hurt more - Sky or Channel 4. Anyhow Channel 4 is a channel with public sector funding so Ofcom will simply come down on Sky like a ton of bricks if they won't play ball at this stage. Ditto it seems likely all Ch5 channels will go FTA to coincide with the launch of BBC/ITV Freesat.

I assume the point of Sky's Pay Once Watch Forever is to cause the BBC and ITV to get severe cold feet over their whole Freesat project as they know they can't undercut this price level. But then they will be offering HD on their box and Sky isn't.



> Considering that Film4 is free on Sky and Freeview, that makes the decision to keep E4 and More4 part of a Sky "package" even more bizarre.


Film4 is free on Sky because it is a more recent channel so Ch4 negotiated to broadcast it on Sky/Astra on a non encrypted basis.


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

Pete77 said:


> This is because Sky have Channel 4 locked in to an encryption deal on their platform that is too expensive for them to buy out of before the present encryption contract ends in 2008.


Thanks Pete, that all makes sense. Do you happen to know if it's early or late 2008?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

b166er said:


> Thanks Pete, that all makes sense. Do you happen to know if it's early or late 2008?


A read of this website is helpful on the issue:-

www.astra2d.com/freesat.htm



> Channel 4 expresses Freesat interest 27-04-07
> 
> Channel 4 has expressed interest in joining the Freesat proposition, which was approved by the BBC Trust and officially announced by the BBC and ITV today.
> 
> ...


As you can see dates keep going backwards for the non Sky Freesat service and the talk of the C4 encryption deal ending in 2008 is only just that (talk) but the fact C4 did not allow FilmFour to be encrypted (even the soft FTV version of encryption that restricts access to only those with Sky viewing cards) when it was relaunched surely says that the long term objective of C4 is to be entirely Free to Air.

And as I say I think the timing of Sky's £75 Pay Once Wacth Forever offer is highly significant in being designed to try and make various parties to the Freesat project get cold feet. I don't see how they can possibly install a BBC Freesat box and dish at your house for anywhere near to £75 a go. £150 quite possibly.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> At that point Channel 4 will *demand * that More4 and E4 go FTA on Sky but remain in the Sky EPG along with Ch4 (currently FTV so needing a Sky viewing card but not requiring a Sky sub). If Sky *refuse to play ball * they just take Channel 4 off air on Sky. Now who is that going to hurt more - Sky or Channel 4. Anyhow Channel 4 is a channel with public sector funding so *Ofcom will simply come down on Sky like a ton of bricks * if they won't play ball at this stage. Ditto it seems likely all Ch5 channels will go FTA to coincide with the launch of BBC/ITV Freesat.


Trifle overdramatic there Pete. When the contract comes to an end, the C4 channels will simply move to be FTA, just like all the other FTA channels. Why do you make out that it would be fight?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Trifle overdramatic there Pete.


Our Pete; over-dramatic? Never


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Trifle overdramatic there Pete. When the contract comes to an end, the C4 channels will simply move to be FTA, just like all the other FTA channels. Why do you make out that it would be fight?


Because its no use simply being FTA on Astra for Channel 4 unless they are also in the Sky EPG on Channel 104. And it is for that dubious privilege which Sky then demands a king's ransom if your channel is not encrypted.

If you recall it took the BBC and then ITV rather a lot of time and money to extricate themselves from their Sky encryption arrangements. Only because the BBC and ITV were big enough and powerful enought to beat them in court and/or at the regulator did Sky cave in. A company less important like Rapture Tv have found that Sky continue to demand extortionate amounts of money to be in the Sky EPG but not encrypted in one of their pay channel packages - see www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ccases/closed_all/cw_920/

I think it is far more guaranteed TCM that you will always appear as Sky's night on a white charger to defend their commercial behaviour in these forums than it is that I will be what you choose to describe as "over dramatic".


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Because its no use simply being FTA on Astra for Channel 4 unless they are also in the Sky EPG on Channel 104. And it is for that dubious privilege which Sky then demands a king's ransom if your channel is not encrypted.


Rubbish. Encrypted E4 pays £1.7m, half a million more for than the unencrypted BBC2. Encrypted More 4 pays £300k more then FTA CBBC.



> A company less important like Rapture Tv have found that Sky continue to demand extortionate amounts of money to be in the Sky EPG but not encrypted in one of their pay channel packages - see www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ccases/closed_all/cw_920/


I guess it's a matter of perspective. I would regard offering a discount (of £40k in that particular case) if they bought two services (EPG and encryption) rather than one (EPG) to be standard business practice. I think you'll find your local Tescos takes a similar view when it comes to the sale of beans.



> I think it is far more guaranteed TCM that you will always appear as Sky's night on a white charger to defend their commercial behaviour in these forums than it is that I will be what you choose to describe as "over dramatic".


Possibly, although I'd say it was equally guaranteed that you will take the view that business is bad, Ofcom corrupt, and the conspirators are running the show!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Rubbish. Encrypted E4 pays £1.7m, half a million more for than the unencrypted BBC2. Encrypted More 4 pays £300k more then FTA CBBC.


What is your source for this information. I would certainly be interested to consult it.

Also why did anyone at the Beeb, ITV and Ch4 and Five ever agree to have their signal encrypted in that case? Presumably because of the problem of the programs being able to be widely received outside the UK and infringing rights agreeements before the shift to Astra 2D?

It still doesn't answer what extra incentives Ch4 were given to encourage them to agree to E4 and More4 to be pay channels on Sky, rather than merely FTV channels for which an active Sky viewing card is required but no sub is needed to watch (as per Ch4, Five, Sky Three, Five US and Five Life). I imagine buying out of that deal is very expensive indeed or they would have done it by now. Or is there no incentive until BBC Freesat appears?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> What is your source for this information. I would certainly be interested to consult it.


http://media.corporate-ir.net/media...sentations/BSkyB_SSSL_Published_PriceList.pdf



> Also why did anyone at the Beeb, ITV and Ch4 and Five ever agree to have their signal encrypted in that case? Presumably because of the problem of the programs being able to be widely received outside the UK and infringing rights agreeements before the shift to Astra 2D?


Answered your own question. If you recall when they came of FTV thay also shifted transponder to one one with a more focussed beam to make it harder for non-UK residents to pick up the BBC.



> It still doesn't answer what extra incentives Ch4 were given to encourage them to agree to E4 and More4 to be pay channels on Sky, rather than merely FTV channels for which an active Sky viewing card is required but no sub is needed to watch (as per Ch4, Five, Sky Three, Five US and Five Life). I imagine buying out of that deal is very expensive indeed or they would have done it by now. Or is there no incentive until BBC Freesat appears?


I would imagine that the contract was with Channel 4 as a company and applied to all their channels. Also E4 launched as pay channel, when the contract would have been signed, and only became free on Freeview later.

I must admit I can't see Freesat taking off. Why would you buy a dish/box which offeres you a set of channels when for the same price you can have another box (Sky) which offers you the same set of channels but with an option to upgrade to more later if you want?


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

TCM2007 said:


> If you recall when they came of FTV thay also shifted transponder to one one with a more focussed beam to make it harder for non-UK residents to pick up the BBC.


That was a sad day for us expats. I still have my 60cm perforated dish in the cellar gathering dust, replaced by a 1.2m x 1m oval solid dish.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I must admit I can't see Freesat taking off. Why would you buy a dish/box which offeres you a set of channels when for the same price you can have another box (Sky) which offers you the same set of channels but with an option to upgrade to more later if you want?


This is clearly what Sky is hoping, which is no doubt why they have come up with the Pay Once Watch Forever product at only £75, instead of the regular £150, with a greater hook (via the 2 free mixes for 6 months) to try to lure people in to subscribing as base level Sky subscribers once they have the install. Although the fact they have now raised the price of 2 Mixes is hardly going to help that process.

The main hook which the BBC/ITV Freesat product would still have at present though, compared to Sky Pay Once Watch Forever, is both HD functionality and PVR functionality without paying a Sky sub. As things stand you would have to pay around £30 per month to get a Sky HD box receiving HD channels and recording them on Sky+. Or would Sky+ let you record the BBC and ITV HD channels on an HD box without a Sky HD sub existing?

But as the BBC product is going to be both HD capabale and have a basic PVR in it and a dish also has to be installed I can't see them doing that for less than £150 per time without a massive subsidy for each customer. No doubt the BBC's original model focused on the Sky £150 Freesat price and it providing a far more functional product for the same price. But now Sky's £75 product has started to mess up the BBC's model. If Sky wanted to be really nasty they could even start providing HD capable boxes Freesat boxes for £75 installed but they would have to be careful about that because of the likelihood of destroying their own expensive pay HD service for their subscription channels.

A key marketing error Sky make with www.freesatfromsky.co.uk is that you pay your £150 to Sky and get your dish and box installed with viewing card but then if you ever want to watch pay Sky they tell you that you must sign up for at least 12 months of 2 Mixes as though you are a new customer. But since Freesatters are by nature price resistant and as Sky has already had their money to cover the box install (which I am sure the £150 does cover) this is a stupid policy. Freesatters who decide they want to watch for the odd few months should be treated the same way as out of contract Sky subscribers who have desubscribed (i.e. they can subscribe for just one month if they want and can give 28 days notice to cancel).

I have even confirmed with Sky Pay Once Watch Forever that if after the free 6 months of two Sky Mixes you do not carry on and do not pay for 2 Sky Mixes for 6 months more then if you ever go back to Sky and say you want to watch pay tv you are told you have to sign up for 1 year of at least 2 Mixes at around £200. Plain stupid stubborness by Sky and only shooting themselves in the foot in terms of encouraging more non subscribed people to subscribe.


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

I think we got moderated! We lost the last 10 messages from this thread.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

*I think some can not understand:

You agree to not use the Service to:

a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable. TiVo Community Forum is not the place for debate on religion, sex, politics, or other such controversial posts; and this is not the place to talk about illegal downloads or how to obtain them. There are several Forums on the Internet dedicated for discussing this type of material. This is not one of them.*

I haven't got the time to edit posts - so I removed the lot!

Please keep subject on-topic and within rules!


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

<scuttles off to naughty corner>


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

ozsat said:


> Please keep subject on-topic and within rules!


So anyway ... what about those Sky price increases 1st Sept. 2007 eh, outrageous. OK, he's stopped listening now. I'm pretty sure it was that last message that triggered the moderation. I got the email notification and saw what was in it. Anyway, back to the frivolous stuff for me too. Shouldn't I be working right now ? Pretty sure I should be.

Sky, prices, high, not fair etc...


----------



## mrtickle (Aug 26, 2001)

chrisd said:


> OK, so they were bad examples, but you know what I meant. I'm getting say 150 channels or so, but out of those I'd be happy only receiving say 10-15 of em.


ok!



> I'm on the whole shebang - every channel (apart from the individual channels like MUTV, NASN etc). But Sports, movies, HD, you name it I got it.
> 
> the 2 mixes doesnt include the sports as far as i know,


Well, neither does the 4 or the 6. You have the choice of mixes that you want - either 2, 4, or 6 - and then [Sport or Films or Both] added, completely separately.

Have a look at the prices grid in the pdf from the first post in this thread - if you are currently on "6 Mixes + Sports + Films", then you can downgrade to "2 Mixes + Sports + Films" and save money. Or "2 Mixes + Sports" and save a bit more.



> so the min I could have it for would be £34/month. Then for another 9 quid I can have all the mixes and the movies and sport, so I just go for the max.


D'oh! They want you to think "it's only another 9 quid", and you fell into the trap


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

b166er said:


> I'm pretty sure it was that last message that triggered the moderation.


/holds hand up.

No. That was me. Sorry. Had a major senior moment; or just a naive one, depending on your POV


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

So did nobody buy the Sky Pay Once Watch Forvever product at £75 as a result of the mention in this thread?

See www.dixons.co.uk/martprd/editorial/Sky Pay Once Watch Forever/?int=hp-promos SKY Pay Once

If anyone objects to the high cost of Sky but needs a Sky Digibox as a program source for their Tivo this surely is the way to get the service without all the usual endless monthly costs.


----------



## Pugwash (May 23, 2003)

As an ex-sky-cheap-package subscriber who went to freeview, I was amused to get a Sky magazine and a letter inviting me back to Sky today.

"Britain's most-read magazine" ?
I can't remember reading mine when I got them. Surely they mean "most-distributed" ?


----------



## mrtickle (Aug 26, 2001)

Lol indeed. I think they must include postmen and women reading the address labels to come up with that high figure.

Beware if you're a subscriber though, letters informing you of price increases and other changes (hidden within paragraphs of other marketing) are sent with the magazine. Always read the letter!


----------

