Sky+ deals

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:34:37 +0100, "Mark S" wrote:


From the Sky+ FAQ:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription.


Your point is what? Oddly that response doesn't even answer the question but is
a simple statement of fact. The correct answer would be:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription because we have discovered that people are willing to pay us ten
pounds per month just to use something they already own & we are laughing all
the way to the bank.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:34:37 +0100, "Mark S" wrote:


From the Sky+ FAQ:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription.


Your point is what? Oddly that response doesn't even answer the question
but is
a simple statement of fact. The correct answer would be:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription because we have discovered that people are willing to pay us
ten
pounds per month just to use something they already own & we are laughing
all
the way to the bank.


My point was that they cannot justify this charge. Actually it wasn't my
point, it was Sky's.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:16:11 +0100, "Mark S" wrote:


"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:34:37 +0100, "Mark S" wrote:


From the Sky+ FAQ:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription.


Your point is what? Oddly that response doesn't even answer the question
but is
a simple statement of fact. The correct answer would be:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription because we have discovered that people are willing to pay us
ten
pounds per month just to use something they already own & we are laughing
all
the way to the bank.


My point was that they cannot justify this charge. Actually it wasn't my
point, it was Sky's.


I agree with you 100%. However I thought that you were responding to my post
justifying BSkyB giving a discount to attract new customers & as such it didn't
make much sense.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:34:37 +0100, "Mark S" wrote:


From the Sky+ FAQ:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription.


Your point is what? Oddly that response doesn't even answer the question
but is
a simple statement of fact. The correct answer would be:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription because we have discovered that people are willing to pay us
ten
pounds per month just to use something they already own & we are laughing
all
the way to the bank.

It is odd isn't it?

I think your logic is a bit simple though because the main reason for the
£10 fee seems to be to persuade people to pay extra money for a channel
package they don't actually want/need thereby avoiding the £10 fee.

Gareth.

Stephen Stewart wrote:

Call me a sceptic, but it seems that Sky never miss an opportunity to rip
off their loyal customers whilst at the same time bending over backwards to
get new subscribers to rip off.

Sky have two aims only:

1) Increase subscriber numbers
and
2) Increase total spend per subscriber.

Giving any sort of discount to existing customers does neither.
They work on the captive market principle of destroying the
competition by any means, legal or illegal, and then extracting as
much cash as possible from the customers who have no other option than
to buy from them, if they want to buy at all.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Mark S wrote:

we are laughing
all
the way to the bank.


My point was that they cannot justify this charge.

Actually the point is that Sky have a total monopoly on the equipment
and as such can charge what they like and don't need to justify it.

This is why monopolies are generally considered to be a bad thing and
why the UK has a commission in place to try and prevent them from
happening.
Not very effective though, it seems. Rather like Ofcom and the DCMS.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

"Gareth" wrote in message
...

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:34:37 +0100, "Mark S" wrote:


From the Sky+ FAQ:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription.


Your point is what? Oddly that response doesn't even answer the question
but is
a simple statement of fact. The correct answer would be:

Q: Why is there an extra subscription fee for Sky+?
A: To use the Personal Video Recorder features of Sky+ you need a Sky+
subscription because we have discovered that people are willing to pay us
ten
pounds per month just to use something they already own & we are laughing
all
the way to the bank.

It is odd isn't it?

I think your logic is a bit simple though because the main reason for the
£10 fee seems to be to persuade people to pay extra money for a channel
package they don't actually want/need thereby avoiding the £10 fee.

Yup, that is now the situation, and the reason I don't have Sky+. I'd
happily pay the £200 (or even a little more) for the equipment, I just
refuse to pay them a monthly fee to use it.

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen Stewart"

wrote:


"SkyTech" wrote in message
...
new customers

sky+ and an extra digi box for 99 quids free install


current customers 149 plus variable install fee



Yes another kick in the teeth for existing users.

Call me a sceptic, but it seems that Sky never miss an opportunity to rip
off their loyal customers whilst at the same time bending over backwards
to
get new subscribers to rip off.

I want to upgrade to Sky+ and where I am it's not feasible to install the
multibox option so I get charged £149 + £60 installation.

If I hadn't been an existing customer and already paying Sky £40 a month
for
the privilege, I could get what I'm now after for £99 all in.

That's £110 more!

Morally speaking I believe that Sky should have some degree of committment
towards their existing subscribers and it leaves a bit of a bad taste your
mouth to be continually proven that they only value you for your money
rather than your continued custom.

I'm not usually an apologist for BSkyB but I think that you are being
rather
hard on them they are in business to make money after all. They are not
over-charging existing customers but offering a discount to new customers
as an
incentive to get them to subscribe. They want new customers like you
paying £40
a month & for each one they attract they will quickly recoup the £110
discount
they are giving them.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

True and I see your point, but I still can't help feeling a little bit hard
done by.

I know that all companies are basically in business to make money but it has
to be said that not all companies fail to show their best customers due
deference.


Stephen

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Stephen Stewart wrote:

Call me a sceptic, but it seems that Sky never miss an opportunity to rip
off their loyal customers whilst at the same time bending over backwards
to
get new subscribers to rip off.

Sky have two aims only:

1) Increase subscriber numbers
and
2) Increase total spend per subscriber.

Giving any sort of discount to existing customers does neither.
They work on the captive market principle of destroying the
competition by any means, legal or illegal, and then extracting as
much cash as possible from the customers who have no other option than
to buy from them, if they want to buy at all.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ahh..... a fellow cynic. :-)

To be honest my initial comments were slightly tongue in cheek but like all
the best rants there's definitely an element of truth to it.


Stephen

In article , Mark S wrote:
Yup, that is now the situation, and the reason I don't have Sky+. I'd
happily pay the £200 (or even a little more) for the equipment, I just
refuse to pay them a monthly fee to use it.


Good. Market forces in action. This is why I see no need for a change in
the law. If you don't think it's worth it, don't pay. Sky will either hit
their sales targets or not.

As I've written befoIf it were something important like water or
electricity or food then government protection is needed. But for
something is trivial as television and especially 'extra channels not
covered by public service orders' it simply doesn't matter. It's a luxury
item and you either waste your money on it or you don't. Sky makes the
payment plans clear so it's down to customer choice.

Andrue Cope
[Brackley, UK]