Sky TV price increase on 1 September 2013 by up to 10%

[deadman1984]

Maths wasn't your strong point then, and there was me thinking it was English

Existing charge x 1.1 = New charge.

Assuming of course that the rise will be 10%.

maths was not my strong point most i could do was + - thats it lol.

[joe pineapples]

Got a letter today. My entertainment extra package will be going up £1.50

(joe pineapples hates this post)

[dog-man]

Hmmm, if I get a price increase that will probably tip the scales and I will definitely dump sly.

My family are not anti dumping sly as I thought they would be, so it will be easy to do.



dog-man

[Steele11]

This is ridiculous How sky can keep putting the price up Never goes down

[Isitme]

It seems the basic TV price is going up £1.50, no increase in Sports, Movies or any of the other extras, like multi room HD etc.

[Footjoy]

From what I can see from my letter, if they apply the price changes the same accross the board it is

Entertainment Extra and Entertainment Extra + go up by £1.50
Sky Sports Pack 1 & 2 goes up by £1.00
Multiroom goes up by £1.00 but includes Sky Go Extra.

Everything else such as Movies, 1 sports channel, HD no change.

so top tier package goes up by £3.50.

no mention of Broadband prices.

[dog-man]

Why don't they get rid of some of the useless channels they have instead?

That would cut their costs and we wouldn't have to pay more.




dog-man

[Rturner003]

Why don't they get rid of some of the useless channels they have instead?

That would cut their costs and we wouldn't have to pay more.




dog-man

What are useless channels to you are probably liked by someone else.

I cannot see how getting rid of channels will make the price cheaper. I maybe wrong, probably am, but I would have thought that channel owners pay Sky to broadcast and get their revenue from advertising.

The big costs for Sky are the Sky News, Sports, etc especially Football by the money the clubs seem to getting from it.

[joe pineapples]

Why don't they get rid of some of the useless channels they have instead?

That would cut their costs and we wouldn't have to pay more.

dog-man

Like you say, there are just too many channels. Its not my gripe that certain ones are of no interest to me as maybe they are to someone else, but the fact many channels show exactly the same programmes sooner or later. As much as I like 'Wheeler Dealers' for example, I don't need to watch it on Discovery, Discovery Turbo, and Discovery Shed. Great way for Sky to pad out those extra channels I guess.

[Saturday]

I cannot see how getting rid of channels will make the price cheaper. I maybe wrong, probably am, but I would have thought that channel owners pay Sky to broadcast and get their revenue from advertising.

That's pretty much my understanding too.

Sky has 3 things: Their own channels (i.e. those called Sky something or other), their infrastructure (boxes, billing systems and content production and licensing agreements) and their EPG.

Essentially everyone including Sky pays the owners of the Astra satellites to carry their channels, all non Sky channels pay Sky for the use of Sky's EPG and some channels pay Sky to do aspects of their billing. No doubt it gets more complicated than that but I think that's pretty much how it works.

So, in fact, if that's correct, if there were fewer dross channels Sky would get less income from their EPG and potentially would therefore increase their prices. But none of that takes away the basic point that, in my opinion, there are too many channels and Sky charges too much. Somehow I just can't see how continuous inflation in channels and Sky charges can continue much longer. With the core channels offering catch-up services and the rising popularity of Netflix etc, in the current economic climate, the Sky bubble must be close to bursting.