Sky Q Multiscreen

2

Comments

  • iniltous
    iniltous Posts: 3,022
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    mije1983 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why it should be viewed as standard? I know a lot of people who don't have Sky. Indeed, many people on this forum don't have Sky. Sky isn't a necessity so it is really a luxury product. The FTA channels could be considered standard.

    Because pay TV isn't considered 'essential' there is little or no regulation on wholesale access , prices etc.



    Of course it's possible, but it's not Sky's fault that nobody else wants to make the billions of pounds of investment in infrastructure to challenge them. It's not a surprise that nobody has though, given the issues faced by Sky's predecessors when they started out.

    Sky were given a massive leg up from the then Thatcher Government ( no doubt as a payback for Ruperts support) by barring some company's from entering the broadcast TV market, and although initially there was competition between Sky and BSB ( remember them ), BSB failed and were absorbed by Sky.
    Sky dominance was assured and they now have massive market power in pay TV , in other markets such as media or telecoms this scale of domination would be subject to state regulation....Sky is effectively an unregulated monopoly
  • mije1983
    mije1983 Posts: 3,665
    First Post Combo Breaker Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 7 August 2018 at 2:45PM
    iniltous wrote: »
    Sky were given a massive leg up from the then Thatcher Government ( no doubt as a payback for Ruperts support) by barring some company's from entering the broadcast TV market, and although initially there was competition between Sky and BSB ( remember them ), BSB failed and were absorbed by Sky.
    Sky dominance was assured and they now have massive market power in pay TV , in other markets such as media or telecoms this scale of domination would be subject to state regulation....Sky is effectively an unregulated monopoly

    I'm pretty sure it was actually BSB who were awarded the license originally rather than Sky TV (as they were known then).

    Both Sky TV and BSB lost millions until they came together. They would have both gone under if they hadn't. And that is my point. Nobody else can justify the investment to challenge Sky. And nobody is prevented from doing so today if they wanted to.

    So again, it's hardly Sky's fault that they have no competition. So it is by default, not design, that they are 'an unregulated monopoly'. The same as Virgin. Until very recently no other provider could get anywhere near their BB speeds, and mainstream ones still don't generally. But that's not their fault. Others have seen the huge outlay and baulked at it. No-one wants to spend billions on their own network when they can piggyback on OR and use a network they have no responsibility for, even if it does offer inferior speeds.

    And given the rising popularity of streaming, I doubt anyone will ever take Sky on directly now.
  • iniltous
    iniltous Posts: 3,022
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    mije1983 wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was actually BSB who were awarded the license originally rather than Sky TV (as they were known then).

    Both Sky TV and BSB lost millions until they came together. They would have both gone under if they hadn't. And that is my point. Nobody else can justify the investment to challenge Sky. And nobody is prevented from doing so today if they wanted to.

    So again, it's hardly Sky's fault that they have no competition. So it is by default, not design, that they are 'an unregulated monopoly'. The same as Virgin. Until very recently no other provider could get anywhere near their BB speeds, and mainstream ones still don't generally. But that's not their fault. Others have seen the huge outlay and baulked at it. No-one wants to spend billions on their own network when they can piggyback on OR and use a network they have no responsibility for, even if it does offer inferior speeds.

    And given the rising popularity of streaming, I doubt anyone will ever take Sky on directly now.

    Both Sky and British Sky Broadcasting were given licences , BSB failed, and Sky absorbed BSB.
    BT a company that had the resources and technical know how to be a competitor to Sky were barred from being a broadcast company for decades , and by the time BT were allowed to compete , Sky were the effective monopoly.
    Most company's with the market dominance that Sky enjoy , ( even if you could argue that they won that market share by fair means) wouldn't be allowed to keep that position, and would be required to divest, imagine only one bank, or one newspaper, or one supermarket, but as I said , presumably pay TV isn't considered to be anything more than a luxury item , so are able to keep thier near monopoly position, people can decide for themselves why this continues to be the case
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    iniltous wrote: »
    , presumably pay TV isn't considered to be anything more than a luxury item , so are able to keep thier near monopoly position,
    That is exactly the point. Pay TV is hardly an essential requirement.

    I disagree Sky have a "monopoly" though....
  • takman
    takman Posts: 3,876
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    splats wrote: »
    I agree with your sentiment to a degree, especially as it relates to luxury products, fancy holidays, cars, etc.

    My point is that Sky still seem to view and price their product as if though it's a luxury when, in this day and age, it really should be viewed as a pretty standard part of every day life. People were losing their sh*t at refugees coming to the UK talking on their smartphone as they falsely believed such technology was a luxury and "things can't be that bad".

    Smartphones aren't really a luxury anymore. It's as basic a part of your life as some clothes on your back and if Sky has been subjected to the same competition as the phone companies for the last 20-30 years, their product would likely be viewed and charged similarly.

    It doesn't put me up or down, I can afford it, but I don't feel like it's great value and I do feel it's an unnecessary strain for those on the breadline.

    I really don't see how Sky TV could be considered anyway essential considering the amount of channels available for no monthly subscription on freeview and freesat.

    You can get both Netflix and Amazon prime for less than the cheapest Sky Package and it's far more convenient as you can watch exactly what you want, when you want it. Plus some of the best programs on there are exclusives which can't be found on Sky, Virgin etc.

    Having to scroll through an EPG to see whats on, having to make sure you record everything you want to watch at a later date and then having to manage your recordings on a local device is unnecessarily time consuming when streaming on demand is much more convenient.
  • splats
    splats Posts: 5 Forumite
    If it wasn't for the fact that unlimited minutes and texts is pretty much standard and taken for granted you'd say the same about mobile phones.

    Imagine if 500 mins and 1000 texts was still the normal package for a mobile phone deal and someone bemoaned that, "they should be doing unlimited/unlimited deals by now". You'd rightly say, "that's a luxury and not a requirement/expectation".

    As it stands, Sky TV and the various add on's are a luxury given their pricing point. You'll get no argument from me on that. However, my point is that after 30 odd years in the market I feel Sky should have gone (probably didn't due to lack of competition) the route of mobiles and made more features standard.

    I'm not saying Sky should be free. It's still a business and a paid for service but charging extra for HD content and multi-room feels like the dark ages. Imagine how hacked off you'd be if you made a few phone calls from Spain and came back to a whacking bill. That's not a problem as most contracts have good roaming now but that's what it feels like when I'm asked to pay £5 for HD. It feels like we should be beyond that point.

    We say things like, "remember when you used to run out of minutes and text" as we reflect on 2000 to 2010. I personally feel that we should be saying, "remember when you used to have to pay for HD content on Sky" by now. It should be something we look back on and laugh about. After all, I'd imagine the very vast majority of TV's connected to a Sky box are HD so why are Sky operating in the dark ages and applying and additional charge.
  • takman
    takman Posts: 3,876
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    splats wrote: »
    If it wasn't for the fact that unlimited minutes and texts is pretty much standard and taken for granted you'd say the same about mobile phones.

    Imagine if 500 mins and 1000 texts was still the normal package for a mobile phone deal and someone bemoaned that, "they should be doing unlimited/unlimited deals by now". You'd rightly say, "that's a luxury and not a requirement/expectation".

    I wouldn't say that unlimited minutes is standard but i agree that unlimited texts are (but i hardly ever use text messages and don't know many people who do).

    The one thing you didn't mention was mobile data which actually has gone backwards. Three used to do "The one plan" which offered unlimited data including unlimited tethering". Now they only offer tethering up to a certain amount and you won't find a mobile operator that offers truly unlimited data anymore.
    splats wrote: »
    As it stands, Sky TV and the various add on's are a luxury given their pricing point. You'll get no argument from me on that. However, my point is that after 30 odd years in the market I feel Sky should have gone (probably didn't due to lack of competition) the route of mobiles and made more features standard.

    I'm not saying Sky should be free. It's still a business and a paid for service but charging extra for HD content and multi-room feels like the dark ages. Imagine how hacked off you'd be if you made a few phone calls from Spain and came back to a whacking bill. That's not a problem as most contracts have good roaming now but that's what it feels like when I'm asked to pay £5 for HD. It feels like we should be beyond that point.

    We say things like, "remember when you used to run out of minutes and text" as we reflect on 2000 to 2010. I personally feel that we should be saying, "remember when you used to have to pay for HD content on Sky" by now. It should be something we look back on and laugh about. After all, I'd imagine the very vast majority of TV's connected to a Sky box are HD so why are Sky operating in the dark ages and applying and additional charge.

    Why would they want to offer something like HD for free when they can charge for it and people pay for it?.

    As i said above i think Sky is a waste of money but it's people like you who continue to pay for it that means they have no incentive to change their pricing structure.

    If there were no other options apart from Sky then i would agree their prices should be reviewed. But considering you can get better services for lower prices then it's down to the consumer to make that choice.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    takman wrote: »
    Having to scroll through an EPG to see whats on, having to make sure you record everything you want to watch at a later date and then having to manage your recordings on a local device is unnecessarily time consuming when streaming on demand is much more convenient.
    On demand content (and "Catch-UP") is available via Sky. It generally has to be broadcast first, but content from all the main providers is readily available via Sky (and Virgin, BT etc), all that is required is an internet connected decoder.
    takman wrote: »
    considering you can get better services for lower prices
    That's matter of opinion, of course.
    If you are only watching streaming content from Netflix and Prime then you have seriously less choice, although I agree the cost is far far less.
  • takman
    takman Posts: 3,876
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    On demand content (and "Catch-UP") is available via Sky. It generally has to be broadcast first, but content from all the main providers is readily available via Sky (and Virgin, BT etc), all that is required is an internet connected decoder.

    If you are only watching streaming content from Netflix and Prime then you have seriously less choice, although I agree the cost is far far less.

    My smart TV has freeview play built in so i get all the freeview channels and catch up services (BBC, ITV, 4od, Demand 5 & UKTV Play), it also has a freesat decoder built in if i wanted more channels.
    Combine this with all the content on Netflix and Amazon then i would say i still get a vast amount of choice. I could spend


    I've just looked and on NowTV you can get the entertainment pass for £7.99 a month and that would seem to give me access to the best programs from the main Sky Channels.
    Adding this to the cost of Amazon Prime and Netflix it is still cheaper per month to have all three than having a basic Sky subscription with HD on one TV whereas the streaming services can be used on multiple devices at the same time.

    The combination of NowTV, Netflix and Amazon Prime will allow access to the best programs from each service so you get more decent quality programs You can then also have all the catch up and freeview/freesat channels for free.

    Which again begs the question why do so many people pay for Sky?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    takman wrote: »
    Which again begs the question why do so many people pay for Sky?
    I think live Soccer is the biggest attraction.

    The "cable cutting" phenomenon sweeping the States has not yet begun in earnest here, but the same inertia is prevalent here with Banking and Utilities-people don't want the hassle of changing providers.

    (By the way, NOW TV is from Sky;) )
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards