Sky relaunch Sky Sports with new packages starting from £18

Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Indeed. When Sky was the only bidder it was in their interests to keep their payments as low as possible. As soon as a rival came on the scene Sky's bids shot through the roof due to the secret bidding format. If the companies could compete in an auction then the prices may not be as high but because they have to submit secret bids they are possibly paying more for the product to ensure that they get it.

Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

GD is a right wing libertarian, the competition thing was me making a joke at him.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:
Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Indeed. When Sky was the only bidder it was in their interests to keep their payments as low as possible. As soon as a rival came on the scene Sky's bids shot through the roof due to the secret bidding format. If the companies could compete in an auction then the prices may not be as high but because they have to submit secret bids they are possibly paying more for the product to ensure that they get it.

My memory of an economic strategy games module I did at University is that no matter what style of auction you do, on average, the final price is remarkably similar to what people would have bidded anyway i.e. it reaches the price the market can bear regardless of which method is chosen whether that's sealed bids or eBay public bids.

Moggy wrote:
Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

GD is a right wing libertarian, the competition thing was me making a joke at him.

I don't recognise the term left wing libertarian unless used as an Oxymoron. :datass:

Grumpy David wrote:
Return_of_the_STAR wrote:
Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Indeed. When Sky was the only bidder it was in their interests to keep their payments as low as possible. As soon as a rival came on the scene Sky's bids shot through the roof due to the secret bidding format. If the companies could compete in an auction then the prices may not be as high but because they have to submit secret bids they are possibly paying more for the product to ensure that they get it.

My memory of an economic strategy games module I did at University is that no matter what style of auction you do, on average, the final price is remarkably similar to what people would have bidded anyway i.e. it reaches the price the market can bear regardless of which method is chosen whether that's sealed bids or eBay public bids.

Moggy wrote:
Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

GD is a right wing libertarian, the competition thing was me making a joke at him.

I don't recognise the term left wing libertarian unless used as an Oxymoron.

That can't always be true surely? if Sky are prepared to pay £1bn for a package but BT were only prepared to pay £500m then Sky would end up paying £1bn in a sealed bid auction but just over £500m in a traditional auction.

Moggy wrote:
Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

GD is a right wing libertarian, the competition thing was me making a joke at him.

Oh, I knew you weren't being serious i just wanted to moan about it

Grumpy David wrote:
Return_of_the_STAR wrote:
Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Indeed. When Sky was the only bidder it was in their interests to keep their payments as low as possible. As soon as a rival came on the scene Sky's bids shot through the roof due to the secret bidding format. If the companies could compete in an auction then the prices may not be as high but because they have to submit secret bids they are possibly paying more for the product to ensure that they get it.

My memory of an economic strategy games module I did at University is that no matter what style of auction you do, on average, the final price is remarkably similar to what people would have bidded anyway i.e. it reaches the price the market can bear regardless of which method is chosen whether that's sealed bids or eBay public bids.

Moggy wrote:
Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

GD is a right wing libertarian, the competition thing was me making a joke at him.

I don't recognise the term left wing libertarian unless used as an Oxymoron.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

BT and Sky have announced a £6.50 price increase today. Sky Sport Main Event and Extra (HD) will now cost £33.50 a month on the BT platform.

They're out of their damn minds. That much money for what is effectively 1 channel.

KK wrote:BT and Sky have announced a £6.50 price increase today. Sky Sport Main Event and Extra (HD) will now cost £33.50 a month on the BT platform.

They're out of their damn minds. That much money for what is effectively 1 channel.

So is it £33.50 on bt but £27.50 on sky?

It is. Though on Sky you'll also need the base package (£22) but you'll get all 10 channels. I don't know if Sky are keeping the HD charge (in which case bung on another 6 quid, I think). BT customers are limited to Main Event and the exclusive, albeit sporadic, bonus channel "Extra".

NowTV customers can get all the Sky Sports channels in 720p for £34 a month.

Just signed up for BTs top package at just £18/mth, plus recontracted Infinity 2 broadband and evening/weekend calls phone for just £31.99/mth. Was paying £67 for b'band and phone, plus Sky was £38 on top.

Will be cancelling Sky tomorrow (have to call them, can't do onlineeven after going through the cancellation screens. Bastards).

With BT, 4x existing Now Tv for Sky Sports daily/weekly passes and Entertainment pass, plus Amazon Prime I think we'll be fine without Sky! And about £55 a month better off

Arena and Action are 1 package.

But here comes the bullshit...

To receive Sky Sports in High Definition you need to subscribe to the Box Sets Bundle (£38) AND pay the additional HD £6 fee. So that's £62 minimum, £71.50 for the whole lot.

LOADSAMONEY!

Straight out of the blocks, already there are scheduling issues for BT customers. On Saturday 26th August, Main Event will be airing Bournemouth vs. Manchester City, and joining England v West Indies cricket in-progress at 3pm. And then on the Sunday 27th August, Main Event will be airing Day 3 of the Test, and instead choosing to forgo West Brom vs. Stoke (this may air on Extra). They will then abruptly stop coverage of the cricket at 3:30pm to air Liverpool vs. Arsenal.

Sky to BT customers: A £33 and a strawberry float YOU too!

Just had my BT TV box (Ultra HD version) installed this morning. It's tiny compared to the Sky HD+ box it's replacing! BT Sport Ultra HD channel looks amazing and that's just watching the advert for the stuff you can watch. There's some rerun of footy highlights on later which I'll be watching just to go "ooooohh arrrrrh" at

We now have:
- BT TV Total Entertainment (top package with all available channels that don't cost more e.g. sky Movies) for £18/mth
- Now Tv (4 boxes) with Entertainment (£1.39/mth) and Movies (£1.99/mth), plus will buy day or week Sky Sports pass as needed (£6.99/£10.99)
- Amazon Prime Video (part of the £59/year cost when signed up to Prime)
- Freeview HD
- Freesat HD

Sky is confined to history in our house I reckon

KingK wrote:Now Tv (4 boxes) with Entertainment (£1.39/mth) and Movies (£1.99/mth)

How are you getting those that cheap?

KK wrote:Arena and Action are 1 package.

But here comes the bullshit...

To receive Sky Sports in High Definition you need to subscribe to the Box Sets Bundle (£38) AND pay the additional HD £6 fee. So that's £62 minimum, £71.50 for the whole lot.

LOADSAMONEY!

Wait... High Definition, not 4K? For an extra charge compared to SD? This is 2017! :lol:

Here's a complete rundown of Sky's current pricing structure:

Tier 1

Original (270 Standard Definition channels, 11 of those in HD): £22 a month
Variety (over 300 Standard Definition channels, 11 of those in HD, with childrens on-demand): £32 a month
Box Sets (over 350 channels, over 50 in HD, Box Sets on-demand, childrens on-demand): £38 a month

Tier 2

Sky Cinema (includes High Definition): £10 a month
Sky Sports (in Standard Definition): £18 a month up to £27.50 (£7.50 a month discount applied if you agree to a new 18 month contract)
Sky Sports High Definition and Ultra HD Charge (Box Sets bundle required): £6 a month; or £2 extra if you take the full package and agree a new 18 month contract.

Sports Extra

Manchester United TV, Chelsea TV, or Liverpool TV: £7 a month

Extras

Multiscreen: £12 extra a month
Multiscreen box (x1): £20
Multiscreen box (x2 and upwards): £99 each

Equipement

SkyQ HD: £20
Sky Q 2TB Ultra HD box: £199/£65 when taken with a Multiscreen subscription

NowTV meanwhile has announced a price increase to £7.99 a month for Entertainment.

Basically if you're paying full price for it you're a mentalist. What Sky don't like to shout about is that around 80% of the channels available in the Original bundle are FREE TO AIR. In terms of value, their base package vs NowTV (which includes 720p HD, on-demand and box sets) is genuinely appalling. All Sky customers are blatantly paying for the sports rights of the Premier League (though at least Sky Sports Mix is included).

Last edited by KingK on Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

more heat than light wrote:
KingK wrote:Now Tv (4 boxes) with Entertainment (£1.39/mth) and Movies (£1.99/mth)

How are you getting those that cheap?

Go through the "I want to cancel" process online. They throw them up every so often. Called their bluff on the Kids package (£2.99 full price!) and they let me cancel! Cue a hasty re-activation!
Edit, just logged into my Now Tv account and the Entertainment pass is up in 15 days. Just done the cancel route and they offered me £3.49 per month for 4 months instead of the new £7.99 per ,on the price.
It's crazy how cheap they do it compared to Sky box sets considering they are part of Sky!

I did that but they didn't quote me anything like that cheap. Think it was £5pm for entertainment. I only have NowTV when there's something decent on anyway (GOT etc)

I think the offers are random. Never had them that cheap before but always worth taking the offer. Worth trying over a couple of weeks to see if alters as you get nearer?

PS happy birthday for tomorrow! And me, and others (Rog?, Octoroc? and couple of others!)

Sky relaunch Sky Sports with new packages starting from £18

Who is online

Affiliates