Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • splats
    • By splats 5th Aug 18, 10:03 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 0Thanks
    splats
    Sky Q Multiscreen
    • #1
    • 5th Aug 18, 10:03 PM
    Sky Q Multiscreen 5th Aug 18 at 10:03 PM
    Hi all,

    I'm currently looking at Sky TV and Broadband packages and I'm confused about Sky Q Multi-screen.

    I see that the standard box is a Sky Q 1TB box and I've read that for 99 you can purchase a Mini box that allows you to watch sky on other TVs. I need this functionality so that my wife can watch her recorded programs in the kitchen while I watch something else in the living room. However, I note there is a 12 a month option called "Sky Q Multi-screen" which allows you to watch stuff pretty much anywhere including on tablets.

    To allow my wife and I to watch different content do I need to pay 99 plus 12/month for 18 months? If so, that seems nuts to pay the equivalent of 17.50/month just so she can watch neighbours while I watch the main TV.

    The next issue is that most of the stuff she watches isn't Sky stuff anyway (Crap soaps, One Born, etc) so I'm pretty any Freeview Smart TV would allow her to watch those programmes for free. The issue is, she wants to be able to record them to watch when she's ready.

    Am I missing something, is there a work around or do I have to simply fork out 17.50 a month for what, in 2018, is a pretty basic service/feature.

    P.S. I have no interest in watching stuff on more than two TVs or on phones tablets, etc.
Page 1
    • Colin_Maybe
    • By Colin_Maybe 6th Aug 18, 8:47 AM
    • 2,941 Posts
    • 1,497 Thanks
    Colin_Maybe
    • #2
    • 6th Aug 18, 8:47 AM
    • #2
    • 6th Aug 18, 8:47 AM
    No, it's 20 a month for Entertainment plus 20 setup and if you want the multi room option that adds 12 a month plus another 20 for the first mini box setup. So 32 a month plus 40 one off fee, the boxes BTW are "loaned" so have to be returned when you leave.

    do I have to simply fork out 17.50 a month for what, in 2018, is a pretty basic service/feature
    That's not a basic service/feature though, it works out at 14.22 a month extra for an 18 month contract.

    Whether it's worth it is up to yourself, your alternatives are the likes of a recordable Freeview or Freesat box if you want to record the free channels.
    Last edited by Colin_Maybe; 06-08-2018 at 8:48 AM. Reason: typo
    • brewerdave
    • By brewerdave 6th Aug 18, 9:11 AM
    • 5,134 Posts
    • 2,285 Thanks
    brewerdave
    • #3
    • 6th Aug 18, 9:11 AM
    • #3
    • 6th Aug 18, 9:11 AM
    If all your wife wants is to watch soaps at a time of her convenience, then I'm pretty sure that they are all available via the catch up services eg I Player,All4 etc. These can be watched via a cheap "box" (eg Firestick, Now TV BOX ) attached to the TV as long as you have a decent internet connection.
    • ballyblack
    • By ballyblack 6th Aug 18, 4:40 PM
    • 3,782 Posts
    • 1,985 Thanks
    ballyblack
    • #4
    • 6th Aug 18, 4:40 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Aug 18, 4:40 PM
    so I'm pretty any Freeview Smart TV would allow her to watch those programmes for free. The issue is, she wants to be able to record them to watch when she's ready.
    Buy a Humax recorder from ebay under 100
    • keith1950
    • By keith1950 6th Aug 18, 6:19 PM
    • 2,519 Posts
    • 1,134 Thanks
    keith1950
    • #5
    • 6th Aug 18, 6:19 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Aug 18, 6:19 PM
    Why do most people appear to criticise the 12/month multiscreen fee......if you wanted multiscreen on SkyHD+ it was 10/ month extra wasn't it ?
    I might be reading the OP incorrectly but I thought that to use the 99 mini box you needed the 12/month subscription anyway.....not just for the ability to play on mobiles, tablets etc.
    • splats
    • By splats 7th Aug 18, 9:04 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    splats
    • #6
    • 7th Aug 18, 9:04 AM
    • #6
    • 7th Aug 18, 9:04 AM
    My beef with the 12/month for multi-screen is that it's still a significant cost in the overall package and has been for decades. In nearly all other technology sectors features have become cheaper or free as the services are streamlined and developed.

    For example, you used to have to pay a fortune to phone mobile to mobile, then it was included in your inclusive minutes. Then generous plans came out that allow unlimited calls, texts and all the data you need. Of course, you still got destroyed if you even switched your phone on in another country, but that changed too. I currently have a 20/mth sim only deal that allows me to make unlimited text and calls and use something like 20GB of data in pretty much any country in the world I'd care to visit. If you compare the flexibility of this 20 deal to a 20/month deal from 10, 15 or 20 years ago the difference is night and day.

    Moreover, to achieve the above, Vodafone have to broker deals with other networks all around the world and continuously invest in new transmission infrastructure. Meanwhile, Sky still want to charge a fortune to watch their service on more than one TV when the signal and infrastructure is all ready in your home. In 2018, I honestly would expect that you should be able to buy as many 50-70 "add on" boxes as you like and ping the service all around your home.

    ....and don't even get me started on paying 5/month for HD content. WTF.
    • Colin_Maybe
    • By Colin_Maybe 7th Aug 18, 9:56 AM
    • 2,941 Posts
    • 1,497 Thanks
    Colin_Maybe
    • #7
    • 7th Aug 18, 9:56 AM
    • #7
    • 7th Aug 18, 9:56 AM
    ....and don't even get me started on paying 5/month for HD content. WTF.
    Originally posted by splats
    Or an extra 6 a month for Sports HD on top of that, plus if you want UHD you have to pay for the 2GB box plus the 12 charge for multi screen (even if you only want 1 box) rather than the 1GB. Even then you'd only get UHD on the main box.

    They don't even throw the HD in for free if you're paying extra in order to get UHD on the very limited number of channels it's available on.
    • splats
    • By splats 7th Aug 18, 10:13 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    splats
    • #8
    • 7th Aug 18, 10:13 AM
    • #8
    • 7th Aug 18, 10:13 AM
    It's scandalous really. I'm guessing the problem has been a lack of viable competition. In the previously used phone example, there were 3-5 big players all keeping each other in check and poised to slit a throat if anyone got too far out of line.

    Thankfully, I'm not massively into TV/Sport, etc because, looking at the pricing, you could easily be over 100 per month for your TV/Broadband if you were. That's a significant part of your monthly budget if you live alone and bank an average 1,500 pcm.

    It's going to be an interesting few years for me. This will be my first home in 10 years with broadband faster than 5mbit/sec (expecting 75mbit/sec) so I'll finally be able to stream content with ease. It could potentially see Sky being ditched entirely if I find myself happy to use Freesat and streaming services. As these services improve and internet speeds get faster, there could be more and more people thinking the same way.
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 7th Aug 18, 11:30 AM
    • 3,542 Posts
    • 20,277 Thanks
    mije1983
    • #9
    • 7th Aug 18, 11:30 AM
    • #9
    • 7th Aug 18, 11:30 AM
    you could easily be over 100 per month for your TV/Broadband if you were. That's a significant part of your monthly budget if you live alone and bank an average 1,500 pcm.
    Originally posted by splats
    But if you live alone, you could probably cope without the multi screen element

    It's like anything though, you have to cut your cloth according to your earning power. If you can't afford it, you can't have it. Not being able to afford it isn't really a reason for Sky to reduce the cost. There's lots of things I'd like but I can't afford them all, so have to make decisions on what I have and what I don't.

    • splats
    • By splats 7th Aug 18, 12:58 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    splats
    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.
    • mije1983
    • By mije1983 7th Aug 18, 2:27 PM
    • 3,542 Posts
    • 20,277 Thanks
    mije1983
    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.
    Originally posted by splats
    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.


    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.
    Originally posted by splats
    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.

    • iniltous
    • By iniltous 7th Aug 18, 3:13 PM
    • 1,701 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    iniltous
    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.
    Originally posted by mije1983
    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
    • By mije1983 7th Aug 18, 3:43 PM
    • 3,542 Posts
    • 20,277 Thanks
    mije1983
    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
    Originally posted by iniltous
    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.
    Last edited by mije1983; 07-08-2018 at 3:45 PM.

    • iniltous
    • By iniltous 8th Aug 18, 12:09 AM
    • 1,701 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    iniltous
    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.
    Originally posted by mije1983
    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
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 8th Aug 18, 12:32 AM
    • 22,311 Posts
    • 11,896 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    , presumably pay TV isn't considered to be anything more than a luxury item , so are able to keep thier near monopoly position,
    Originally posted by iniltous
    That is exactly the point. Pay TV is hardly an essential requirement.

    I disagree Sky have a "monopoly" though....
    • takman
    • By takman 8th Aug 18, 9:27 AM
    • 3,695 Posts
    • 3,342 Thanks
    takman
    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.
    Originally posted by splats
    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
    • By splats 8th Aug 18, 9:37 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    splats
    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
    • By takman 8th Aug 18, 10:05 AM
    • 3,695 Posts
    • 3,342 Thanks
    takman
    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".
    Originally posted by splats
    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.

    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.
    Originally posted by splats
    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.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 8th Aug 18, 10:43 AM
    • 22,311 Posts
    • 11,896 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    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.
    Originally posted by takman
    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.
    considering you can get better services for lower prices
    Originally posted by takman
    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
    • By takman 8th Aug 18, 10:47 AM
    • 3,695 Posts
    • 3,342 Thanks
    takman
    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.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    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?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,882Posts Today

9,507Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • How much of your income do you spend on holidays each year? Please vote in this week's MSE site poll... https://t.co/LZ3YIGra1p

  • RT @FinanceJames: @MartinSLewis Absolutely do. I've been shouldered out of the way by cyclists - while on a bike myself - because I'd stopp?

  • I no longer have a car. I mostly walk (& occasionally cycle). I don't need lecturing on bad drivers, I lost my moth? https://t.co/tsBYUEhRjt

  • Follow Martin