IF VIRGIN OR SKY WAS ?20 ????

[kingy999]

HI ALL

IF THEY WAS MORE REASONABLE AND DROPPED THERE COST TO AROUND THE ?20 MARK ,THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR ANY OFF THIS !! SURELY IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE ALOT MORE PEOPLE PAYING , THAN PAYING FOR PEOPLE TO CATCH PEOPLE ..

HOW MANY WOULD PAY ?20 , FOR ALL CHANNELS ??

[Shady]

silly question.. everybody would.. but it'll never happen. its a sellers market

[thefantom]

We'll - some would but a lot of people see it as hobby. Especially on the sat site.

[CG121]

We'll - some would but a lot of people see it as hobby. Especially on the sat site.

Close, but 0.1% see it as a hobby and actually contribute knowledge/software, the other 99.9% just want free tv as easily as possible and flood the numerous forums begging for it...

[aftermath]

i would , simply as..

would help keep the price down.
peace of mind, no worries about the law side of things.
a better and more reliable reciever for HD, recordings and stuff.
watch catchup TV what you have missed.

i am on half price SKY offer at the mo ?25 a month , free installation, all channels, HD sport e.t.c/

i have to cancel next month as it goes to full price, so might give VM a phone, see what offers they can give.

[dctyper]

its a monopoly if you ask me

[GastonJ]

That's like saying that Boeing and Airbus have a monopoly on aeroplanes. You can have TV for free via freeview or freesat, pay sky, virgin or BT. That's not what I'd call a monopoly at all, and believe me with the telephone system we have I know what a monopoly is. Monpoly means you have no choice at all, nada - which as pointed out above, you do have.

[mark8393]

HI ALL

IF THEY WAS MORE REASONABLE AND DROPPED THERE COST TO AROUND THE ?20 MARK ,THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR ANY OFF THIS !! SURELY IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE ALOT MORE PEOPLE PAYING , THAN PAYING FOR PEOPLE TO CATCH PEOPLE ..

HOW MANY WOULD PAY ?20 , FOR ALL CHANNELS ??

but doing that would put premier leauge football players on breadline, ?20k a week, how would they survive.

?20 per month, yes people would, would never happen. should be a way of only paying for what you want, rather than buy packages, just specific channels, otherwise its like saying you want to buy just a jar of coffee , but are forced to buy tea, milk and sugar, its wrong.

[CG121]

This reminds me of a post I made justifying hacking and/or card sharing where I stated that years ago, before sky took over (I mean merged ) with BSB, sky claimed that ads would never appear on their movie channels and subscription prices would fall as the subscriber levels increased...

Well, we now have ads on the movie channels and I can't recall one price reduction since 1989..

They don't need to charge the amounts they do, they try and justify them with shit channels (many of them repeat their daily output every 4 hours or start at 7pm) or with overpriced sports coverage (for which they hike the price up for commercial users)

These companies need to learn that they need to give a little and stop lining the pockets of footballers and shareholders (although I do have shares in sky )

Many people would subscribe to all their output if they could pay ?30/month...

Most people are forced into paying nearly ?100/month which is ****ing ridiculous..

Now that sky have reached a profitable position, the amount of revenue they make from 10m subs + ads is no longer being used to settle startup/operating debts/costs..

While they continue to shit over their customers, people will continue to find ways to reduce their monthly costs..

Let's face it, their movie channels are being investigated as their price is far too great for the repetative scheduling offered..

Many people bang on about competition in this country as if it's a good thing, well it doesn't work everywhere..

If BT was the only ISP, they could've had so many customers they could've offered connections for next to nothing and still made huge profits..

Competition = Fragmentation which = higher costs per provider..

What's the point in having 10 firms scrapping to make a small profit, all equally unable to invest in future improvements and/or price concessions?

Of course, you would have to regulate sole providers to stop them setting outrageous fees, but you'd need a regulator with some balls, which isn't OFCOM..

Competition between 2 companies (sky and VM) is not enough to see real rewards to the end user..

Merge them, introduce effective regulation and reduce your operating costs in order to pass these savings on to the consumer.

No doubt someone will say you can't set restrictions on private company profits, oh yea, ask your next taxi driver who sets their rates...

It's not the taxi firms.

To quote Robert Vaughn (Superman 3) "If theres one thing I hate, it's greed"

[Ansem]

HI ALL

IF THEY WAS MORE REASONABLE AND DROPPED THERE COST TO AROUND THE ?20 MARK ,THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR ANY OFF THIS !! SURELY IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE ALOT MORE PEOPLE PAYING , THAN PAYING FOR PEOPLE TO CATCH PEOPLE ..

HOW MANY WOULD PAY ?20 , FOR ALL CHANNELS ??

for some it's about sitting down at night having a laugh and watching free tv
for more it's about making money from idiots willing to pay for it
and then you have the guys that do it because they can
even if they reduced the price that much id still have my sly and cable card in my dreamboxes

[dctyper]

That's like saying that Boeing and Airbus have a monopoly on aeroplanes. You can have TV for free via freeview or freesat, pay sky, virgin or BT. That's not what I'd call a monopoly at all, and believe me with the telephone system we have I know what a monopoly is. Monpoly means you have no choice at all, nada - which as pointed out above, you do have.

sky sells its services to the above, so it is

[GastonJ]

and the other thousands of channels that you can get for free, you don't have to pay sky or virgin for them, so no not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination

[ir4dex]

?20 would be great but not happening!

?20 would be ideal for me but it's just not happening, i have been through most of the cable boxes over the years such as sv's and dboxe's to try and get the best out of them for my money but all with great risk at the end of the day as to when they come to an end like sv6-7 and now im thinking of learning about the sat side of things. In an ideal world costs shouldnt go up as fast as they do, but sadly they do and people just want to try and get the best deal,it's in their nature i guess.

[GastonJ]

I'm trying to recall what sky first cost me when I subscribed in about 1990, but can't. However I seem to recall that I paid for the movie channels and the rest was free (it was a long time ago, so my memory isn't that good). There wren't that many cahnnels for that either. I do recall it was about ?15 a month, or very close to it. However they 'merged' with BSB to become BSkyB and gathered more channels, then over the years added more and more channels to what it is today. The price has risen quite a lot, having HD on top of that is ?10 more a month - unsure it's worth it but my family disagree (well they would they don't pay for it, I do) I certainly won't be going for 3D.

They have split the packages so that people can subscribe to the 'bit's they want. While I don't really want to pay the ?50 a month that I do I don't only want freeview channels either. At the end of the day you pay for what you get, no-one forces anyone to pay - if you don't like it freeview and freesat exist. There is more to staellite TV than Sky, go out and check.

[SouthernComfort]

As long as there are locked doors there will always be those who want to open them. The Murdochs care as much about consumers as Egyptians do for Mosni Mubarak. The only real competition to the huge corporations are open source projects, communism for the savvy.