So Sky is making more money out of its customers,splitting sports channels so you pay for each one.So if someone likes a lot of diffirent sports it wil cost a fourtune at £18 for each.I will cancel my Sports when the Cricket is finished.not intersted in other sports.
1
Comments
Maths is not my strong point, but..
Just saying.
403 is general football I believe.
All Premier League matches will be shown on Main Event as well. All the Premier League channel has is the same programmes on rotation (highlights, best goals programmes, interviews etc.).
Not to mention the premier league makes an absolute fortune from an increase in overseas tv rights.
Bubble won't be bursting for a while yet.
fortunately I've got BT sport so if I do want a live footy fix I got seria a and European football.
They've been saving up for ages for next year's bidding war for the 20-23 rights. But with Facebook, Amazon and Google all expanding their sports coverage, I'm not sure it'll be enough - unless they go so high that the others simply don't think the PL is worth it.
But that's problematic anyway, as viewing has been in decline for some time. Audiences are fractured, and illegal streaming is a major problem, although not for Facebook as their advertising model would mean free football for anyone with a profile.
And with the next generation using the likes of YouTube, Vine and Netflix to get entertainment fixes, the set top box business model seems antiquated. Of the seven packages, Sky have currently have five and BT two. It'll cost them an astonishing amount to maintain that. And they're going to try, so it seems unlikely the bubble is going to burst in the near future (as Chris from Sidcup said, particularly with foreign rights providing much of the income).
If one of the streaming companies does a Murdoch and commits to using football to get into people's homes, stupid money will still be thrown at the PL. but I can't see it working out well for Rupes and co. who cannot reduce their pricing to a level that suits the generation who are happy to build their own entertainment packages using multiple providers.
If it's not the TV subscribers then who?
The fact that we probably haven't had a subscription that low for a decade says it all so far as the position Sky find themselves in. The loss of Champions League, some cricket and golf coverage too plus the threat of streaming is a big threat.
Whether £54.90 proves too much still only time will tell.
So I've switched to the lowest basic sky package (£5.75 with discount) to keep the box an recording facility. Get bt with my broadband package and have got now tv box for spur of the moment sky purchases.
Depends which way you want to look at it. The current status quo means we are getting screwed financially (the Competition Commission's insistence on not allowing one broadcaster to have all packages inevitably means we would have to spend more to get all games).
As it is, one company is charging way too much, BT is charging very little (given that broadband is an essential now, their deal is very decent), and if FB go with an advertising model instead of subscription, then we become the product - FB are selling us to advertisers and using football to turn us into that product.
Ignorance is no defence I realise, but I am a bit unsure which law I am breaking.
(I realise you may be embracing ignorance on this one).
http://www.ladbible.com/now/uk-interesting-sky-is-launching-a-loyalty-system-to-reward-longest-serving-customers-20170803
The public aren't willing to pay over-the-odds anymore for a service that they can get for much much cheaper over the internet.
I kept Sky for about two and a half years and paid half price (less than £35 a month) but even that in excess of £1,000. Money that sky will never get from me again.
Do they really think that anyone is going to pay £18 a month for F1, that works out at £10 per GP. If they try to charge me that I will have to catch the scraps provided by terrestrial TV