Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 72683 2006-09-22 04:00:00 Do you have Sky TV? stu161204 (123) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
486591 2006-09-22 12:29:00 What? More channels with nothing much to watch? No thanx

Premiership, NRL - that's enough right there 		Twelvevolts (5457)
486592 2006-09-22 13:08:00 I have basic Sky Digital on my phone bill and it is about $12/month cheaper that way. No Sport or Movies. My children enjoy the candy floss of Nikelodeon and Cartoons but also enjoy the Discovery/Animal/History channels when put them on. As do I. Winston001 (3612)
486593 2006-09-22 13:19:00 What kind of phone offers that, Winston? Laura (43)
486594 2006-09-22 16:37:00 I have it but it seems a waste of money cause it's permanently stuck on channel 8 .... drcspy (146)
486595 2006-09-22 20:53:00 I have basic Sky Digital No Sport or Movies. also enjoy the Discovery/Animal/History channels

Same. Yes they do repeat stuff, but thats not always a bad thing, if you miss it you know you can wait and it will come round again at a more convenient time.

And there are new programmes as well. We watch:
Discovery
NAt Geo
Animal Planet sometimes
History
Living Channel sometimes
and I like FoodTV although husband hates that one.

I did watch a programme on Sky 1 last night, normally I don't watch that channel as its too much like the tripe on free TV but this was amusing.
Sports Disasters.

Do you know how to play Ice Hockey? It appears to consist of bashing the other team members and the coach and having punch ups with the audience.

Ripping each others hair out is popular too.

And rugby/soccer in South American countries have riot police standing by with tear gas at the ready for the frequent mass fights that break out.
The game normally resumes once the air clears and the injured carried off.
Totally mad.... 		pctek (84)
486596 2006-09-22 21:54:00 Well, the "financial press" doesn't relate to what I see among my friends & family.
46% is nearly 1 in 2 households. I'd want to know more about that survey...how large was it & where was it done?

I'd guess about 1 in 3, but it's merely a guess in a non-representative small sample of people I know..
And no, I don't have Sky. I've nothing against it except the price..Sorry my memory got it wrong - it's 42%. And it wasn't a survey, it's their actual customer numbers:

"Sky's subscriber base included 492,381 residential digital subscribers (73.8 per cent), 64,927 residential UHF subscribers (9.7 per cent) 97,812 wholesale subscribers (14.7 per cent) and 12,150 (1.8 per cent) commercial and other subscribers.

Sky was now in 42 per cent of New Zealand homes"

In my area it certainly looks like at least half the homes have Sky dishes, and I'm not in a particularly posh neighbourhood.

Personally I couldn't do without my Sky - specially the nature style channels, Food TV and UK TV. But it's important to us for the free-to-air channels because we're in a lousy reception area for a regular aerial. 		Greg (193)
486597 2006-09-22 23:21:00 Sad to see Sky's revenue for the last year was down... I think Sky's revenue was actually up. It was their profits that were down. Which of course is worse. They invested a lot in infrastructure, and had to pay out large on loan interest. Greg (193)
486598 2006-09-22 23:33:00 As I had mentioned last year, you can get one of those gigantic satellite dish and receive TV channels as far as Saudi Arabia (at least, that's what some people tell me).


CHeers :) 		Renmoo (66)
486599 2006-09-23 00:48:00 I have basic Sky Digital on my phone bill and it is about $12/month cheaper that way

please tell me more .....how is this worked ....how can I get onto this I have sky digital basic and it costs $46 (with the skywatch mag) per month.... 		drcspy (146)
486600 2006-09-23 02:01:00 I've had Sky for 4 years and have no hesitation in saying that having it is better than not having it.

Whether or not it's felt to be value for money will depend on individual tastes and viewing habits, as well as having the cash to spend on it.

While it's clear that the cost of providing the service is obviously horrendous, most of these costs are fixed. One that isn't is unfortunately the purchase of programme content and I noted in Sky's last financial statement to shareholders they proudly announced a significant reduction of content costs.

Well I know why how they save on content costs, they just show the same programmes again and again and again.

I watch documentaries almost exclusively, and since only about one in ten is not a direct assault on my intelligence I now find that I've just about run out of anything worth seeing.

The other awful feature of Sky is that we are being groomed to accept increasing levels of advertising that they will use to solve some of their profitability problems (this also from their annual report).

Now, Sky can run their business any way they want and I have the option to quit at any time , which I suspect won't be in the too distant future. The reason I say that is because everything points to a revolution in the way we watch TV and to it's delivery. This item from the BBC web pages shows one of the many initiatives being taken in that direction:


"Coming soon: BBC iPlayer
In April 2007 the BBC is hoping to launch this new easy-to-use service that will let you access both TV and radio programmes via your computer. The plan is that it will include live streaming of TV and also the chance to catch up with programmes you may have missed for up to seven days after broadcast."


Personally, it won't come too soon for me and I'll dump Sky like a hotcake.

There...... got that off my chest :angry 		brig (1359)
1 2 3 4