Page 1 of POLL: Regardless of the package, is a Sky subscription value for money?

Continuing from the Sky HD thread where it seems Bowfer and myself disagree on the value side, here`s the poll.

I`m actually really intrigued to find out the ratio on this one :)

Freeview is still iffy in this area, and it doesn`t offer enough children`s channels or documentary channels, so won`t ever offer a true alternative to Sky. No cable out here, and never likely to be.

For that reason, I`ve had Sky on and off since they launched their first Astra satellite, back in 1989, and can`t ever see anyone offering a suitable replacement where I live.

However, i really do think that £25 a month for a bunch of assorted channels excluding movies or sports is bloody outrageous, especially when you`re supposed to pay £10 extra per TV if you want multiroom - over my dead body!!!

They really ought to make HD and multiroom free, then I might stop moaning. After all, do you have to have an extra TV licence for each additional TV in your house? NO!!!!

This item was edited on Monday, 10th January 2011, 18:44

Quote:
smurfette says...
They really ought to make HD and multiroom free, then I might stop moaning.Yup, me too.
I was working for a company called Clydesdale when the first Astra satellite went up... 1.5M dish and a single tuner analogue receiver at over £300... but it was amazing to see MTV playing in store :D
(at least, think it was MTV... was a while back ;) )

Then BSB launched and I grabbed it with both hands... that was me part of the satellite age due to the tiny squarial... then Sky bought them out and we all got suckered IMO :(

And talking of multirooms... I have 2 :( £20 a month just so the rest of the family can watch what they want without annoying me, albeit still within about 6 or 7 channels between us all.

Jimbo : oÞ

"There`s that word again... is there a problem with the Earth`s gravitational pull in the future?"

I`ve got a HD FreeSAT box and I`m a happy bunny.. and lucky me doesn`t have to pay the licence fee.. (am not a cheat.. my name should give ya a clue :-) )

You`re Paris Hilton and your dad pays it or you just live in a hotel!

Where`s the button that lets me vote "it got too expensive so I sacked it of, & didnt goto cable either cos they`r an even bigger rip-off"

---

Forever <M.A.D>

---

I clicked NO like a lot of people, but I do agree with ......

Quote:
smurfette says...
They really ought to make HD and multiroom free, then I might stop moaning.

I like a lot of others live out in the sticks and will never get cable, so SKY is our only way of getting a lot of decent channels.

The BSB squarial mentioned above brought back memories of me in the office in the 80`s, and a workmate came in carrying a brown box with a squarial dish in bits, and we all forgot work and assembled it that afternoon and connected it to the works TV to see it working, and at night I rushed down to the shop and got one myself for £50, took it home and we put it up that night..

I remember its software contained a strength bar on the TV, and you turned the dish till it got the best signal and fixed it solid with a nut. Woh, high technology had arrived, and we got at least three channels beamed in when it first started, and it was FREE to view.

Then sky took over :/

No and I`m not a Sky subscriber

Even Cable is not good value

5 think it`s good value.
18 think it`s a rip off.
I don`t think that`s the massive landslide you were looking for, Jimbo. ;)

Now, if you`ll excuse me, I`m away to phone and haggle money off.
On the grounds that I`m sick to the back teeth of hearing other people get discounts.
Genuinely, that`s the angle I`m going for.

No cable in my area so no option.


I don`t mind paying for multi-room, think it`s fair enough paying extra £10 for that.

I personally wish I could just have the sports for £20 a month and sack off all other channels.


www.last.fm/user/1mills