Why do people suggest cancelling Sky...

tyllwyd

redsquirrel80 wrote: »

Exactly, but you get used to it. I've recently got rid of my TV licence because I don't spend enough time at home to justify paying for it, and yep I do miss it a bit, but it's made me realise how often I used to put it on just for the sake of it. I can still watch DVDs (have cut end off my aerial cable for when they come round to check but can still use TV with DVD player), read, do other stuff, and it actually feels quite liberating to have got rid of something which a lot of people might claim they "can't live without"

It's probably not very legal without a tv licence, but if you've got a decent broadband package you could also use i-player etc to watch stuff on your pc - or hook the pc up to your tv.

redsquirrel80

Yes - Totally

tyllwyd wrote: »

I don't know how legal it is without a tv licence, but if you've got a decent broadband package you could also use i-player etc to watch stuff on your pc - or hook the pc up to your tv.

You can watch TV on your PC without a licence as long as you aren't watching it at the time of broadcast - so watching iPlayer etc after the programme's been on TV is fine.

never-in-doubt

No - Not a chance

redsquirrel80 wrote: »

You can watch TV on your PC without a licence as long as you aren't watching it at the time of broadcast - so watching iPlayer etc after the programme's been on TV is fine.

what about sky player (live tv online) lol

redsquirrel80

Yes - Totally

never-in-doubt wrote: »

what about sky player (live tv online) lol

I think that would count as 'at the time of broadcast'

a_j_mair

Firstly as others have said with free view etc sky is not a nesecity. Sky is not a god given right. Things like sky and other luxurys require to be earned. It is not a crime if you can afford it.

If you require Sky to keep you sanity i feel for you.

Asfor unlawfull funds, can i ask where did these unlawfull debts originate from?

You need to go to the root of the problem, where it starts.

Yes you can argue irisponsible lending by banks but it is also irresponsible borrowing by customers

I am not preaching I am stating my opinion on something thank you. I do not have to agree with you and dont

Triggles

Sorry, we're in debt, and we have Sky. And we don't plan on cancelling it either! *gasp*

It has nothing to do with not wanting to pay back our debt or not being serious about paying it back. It has everything to do with our entertainment in the home. We don't smoke, rarely drink (not at all now, as DH has decided he doesn't really need it anyway), and never go out - not to the pub, not to the movies, nothing like that. The biggest "going out" thing we do is taking DS2 to McD's maybe once a month for a happy meal as a treat - and often that is ALL we get - his happy meal.

Our debt came about mainly due to DS1 and DD having problems that meant we had to step in and assist financially. These problems are not likely to repeat, and it's all sorted now. But it still leaves us sinking financially.

We have cut back in so many ways - takeaways, shopping mainly consisting of basics/store brands, not going out, along with cutting back in so many other ways. This is our one entertainment and we plan on keeping it. We watch movies together as a couple and shows with our toddler. I watch cooking shows and learn new things to cook, and we watch home improvement shows to get ideas to do things in the house that will make it look nice but are affordable. If I'm really exhausted and giving our baby a night feed, I can find something on tv to watch to stay awake. Or same if child is ill and needs monitoring during night. Nice to have something to watch. It's our choice.

And no, Sky is not a necessity. Neither is internet access. Or a mobile phone. People live quite happily without them. Many people live quite happily with a TV. But while we've cut our budget down quite a bit, we've made specific decisions as to which luxuries we will do without (many of them) and which we won't (sky, internet). We did keep our mobiles, but changed them to PAYG - so instead of paying £60+ per month on phone contracts, we're averaging less than £10 per month now, if even that. I do agree it's a choice - but I don't agree that it's right to criticise some for choosing to keep it, if they are managing to cut most of their other expenses. DH cuts his own hair at home and I colour my hair at home so it's less expensive, but others choose more expensive options. Again, their choice. We ALL need to find a point where we're happy with the compromises. After all, while we are paying back debt, we still need to LIVE a bit too. Most people find the cutting back easier to bear if they have a few small luxuries here and there within their budget. If not, often they fall off the wagon, as they feel it's not worth giving EVERYTHING up.

Insomniac666

I see it as a luxury but one i'd keep... I'm ashamed to say i'd not get rid of it unless no other choice, also, we have full package, incl. HD, Setanta (rip) and now ESPN....oh...and multiroom(s) thing is I can count the amount of times I go out a year on a mutilated hand.. and with my wife working shifts, I need that distraction.

and to be honest there's only so much terrestrial TV you can watch... S4C is fine when you got a signal so you can have subtitles but our signal doesn't pick up freeview.

It is a distraction for th efamily and I think if we all sat in one room with no freeview etc. I think we'd be at each other's throats!

LilacPixie

I think now comments about sky have just become routine. When I have posted my SOA in the past everyone always comments that is should reduce/get rid of my £40 internet/phone/tv package but I always reply with the same comment. Its a decent price for what we get, kids love nick jr, no ariel and the cost to install on for free view is scary and we don't smoke and only have a drink if its been bought as a gift for some occasion or another so it really is our only luxury.

Triggles

I think also that how long you are going to be paying back the debt may enter into the equation as well. If it was only going to take a year or two, and you could cut a few months off that by cancelling Sky, then yes, it might be an option for us (although an extremely unpleasant one!). But ours will be long-haul, involving years of paying back - and 5-10 years is a long time to give up any and all luxuries! You have to give yourself SOMETHING to look forward to in the short term!

milliemonster

I think Sky is a luxury, as are mobiles and lots of other things many of us say we can't do without.

However, it does come down to personal choice and circumstances, if people have cut back on everything in their budget and still in a negative balance but refuse to stop Sky then I have no sympathy for them getting further into debt. But if people who are repaying debts can juggle their budget to include Sky in that or any other luxury they want, whilst still being in a positive balance and able to repay debts then I think that's great.

Paying off debt is mindnumbingly boring and demotivating and its hard to readjust your lifestyles to a more restricted budget, but it all comes down to affordability at the end of the day.

What bugs me is people who don't have debts criticise those with debts for having ANYTHING, I have been criticised for taking my kids on holiday because of the debts we have, but if I pay for that within my budget and not use more credit to do so whilst still paying off my debts then why the hell should we live like paupers just because we have debt to pay off?

It's going to take me a couple of years to pay off the debt we have, we could do it sooner if we got rid of everything, lived hand to mouth, had no treats or luxuries at all but I'm not prepared to do that if I don't have to, I'd rather my DFW journey take a few more months and at least still have a bit of life