MSE News: Sky TV customers to be hit with price hikes

Butterfly_Brain

We got rid of Sky at Christmas and I can honestly say we don't miss it, there are lots of free channels even though sky blocks some of them, but I can get them on my freesat box or on the computer so no worries.
They had a price increase on Dec 1st as well so they are really taking the proverbial p!
Still have their phone and broadband, but will be getting rid as soon as the contract runs out, their broadband is absolute rubbish, we had better signal when we were on dial up, it is their way of pushing people into buying the more expensive fibre optic service.
Added to that I am fed up of them blocking perfectly legal sites

MrWillyWonka

I think Sky is a total ripoff. There are plenty of free channels on Freeview, many of which are great. The is also BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 4oD, 5oD and a handful others.

If you want movies and TV series, Netflix offers much better value. Current price is £6.99 I believe (I pay £5.99 under the old system).

A number of my friends have stopped sky and they were surprised how they didn't miss it!

jem16

Chrissy3372 wrote: »

One more slight grip though. To upgrade you get a freephone number and Live chat. To downgrade you get a premium number only....

0344 numbers are not premium numbers. They are charged in the same way as 01 and 02 numbers and included in any inclusive minutes packages that you have.

pen1

Of course, by requiring customers to take the Family Pack for HD, then adding annual increases, Sky are increasingly widening the minimum price for viewing in HD rather than SD, especially for Sports & Movies customers.

Whilst the cost of the legacy HD Pack added £10.25 per month to the cost of a subscription,by my calculations, the difference will have widened to £19.75 since 2013, if you want one of the premium packs (Sports or Movies) in HD:

From 1st June 2015:

Minimum price for Sky Sports in HD= £66.75
(Family Pack + Sky Sports + HD add-on)

Minimum price for Sky Sports in SD= £47 (Original Pack + Sky Sports)

Minimum price for Sky Movies in HD= £58.25 (Family + Movies+ HD add-on)
Minimum price for Sky Movies in SD= £38.50 (Original + Movies)

Walaboobah

pen1 wrote: »

I think you make a fair point, but of course it wouldn't be fair either for Sky to be loading Premier League costs on to Sports subscriptions this year, for a contract that applies from August 2016!

The reality for Sports subscribers for the coming season, is that increases to the Variety or Family Pack will apply to them, plus an additional £1 per month for Sports, in a season where Sky have lost the Champions League rights to BT Sport.:)

They were highly unlikely to load a £5 per month increase in one go though, I suspect this is the start of a drip drip feed and we'll see £2 a month next year and so on

pen1

I agree, Walaboobah- my point to flowerofscotland was, that it's no fairer to pass the costs of the Premier League deal to sports customers whilst they're not receiving any benefit from it (as it commences August 2016).

However, as a business, I think that Sky will try to pass those costs to customers whenever/however they believe they can achieve it, with the least impact on churn (cancellations) etc.

I think that customer opinion only influences Sky's prices in any meaningful way when/if customers cancel services. Sky rely on the vast majority of customers ultimately not taking the step of cancelling, despite unrest about prices. Ultimately, their lead in content tends to win the argument!

Stevev99

As someone's pointed out, how many channels do you really need?
I was a Sky subscriber for years and when I cancelled, my daughter thought she'd miss all the kids channels, she doesn't since she watches stuff on iPad and all the other on Freeview.
I used to just keep Sky+ but who needs that anymore with all the other great recording devices around.
I now just use the BT freeview box which is far slicker than Sky+ box at finding the on demand stuff and for scrolling back a week or so if need be and watching stuff we miss plus it does all the pausing and has the same record functionality.
We added Netflix for a fiver and that plus all the free sport and we've never looked back and as much as Sky keep writing to me to get me back with 1/3 off deals (whoppee do!) they go straight in the bin.
Wean yourselves off Sky people, you won't miss it and save a fortune - I do, and I don't even get near to watching all the channels on Freeview.
From what I've heard about how BT will be screening Champions League, it'll be a million miles better than how Sky currently show it - all the matches for a start!

blackhawk1975

Raging about covers it. So they overpay for Premiership football and then expect all their customers to pick up the tab? Sky Sports should be taking the brunt of the increase, if they want to watch footie, they can pay for it.

VisionMan

pen1 wrote: »

I think you make a fair point, but of course it wouldn't be fair either for Sky to be loading Premier League costs on to Sports subscriptions this year, for a contract that applies from August 2016!

The reality for Sports subscribers for the coming season, is that increases to the Variety or Family Pack will apply to them, plus an additional £1 per month for Sports, in a season where Sky have lost the Champions League rights to BT Sport.:)

Indeed. If Sky were to have kept to their traditional 'Sept slot' price rise, the majority of Sky Sports users would have/by then been aware they had lost the Champions League coverage.

Which is why I believe they have announced it now for a brought-forward June price increase.

VisionMan

blackhawk1975 wrote: »

Raging about covers it. So they overpay for Premiership football and then expect all their customers to pick up the tab? Sky Sports should be taking the brunt of the increase, if they want to watch footie, they can pay for it.

I agree. But from a business standpoint they can't, as a standalone Sky Sports package (with no base pack) has been estimated to cost anything upwards of £64 a mth. And no one would pay that, so Sky use a 'bundle model' to make the costs look cheaper. But, ultimately, they aren't.