cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Contributor
758 Views
Message 321 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution
Hi MadRob I'm with you. Will probably give it a go for a while and then ditch Sky sports as will have the things I like (cricket) interrupted by Formula One and GAA (whatever that is). The email from Libby Barr suggested she got a good deal (I hope she's not negotiating Brexit). I wonder if she goes on this site to read the comments.
0 Ratings
Highlighted
Aspiring Contributor
990 Views
Message 322 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution
What I don't get about Sky's theory is they claim that these changes are to counter the falling viewing figures in their Sports package, but then deny a huge customer base access to all of these channels. The more I think about the situation, the more it angers me.
0 Ratings
Highlighted
Expert
983 Views
Message 323 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution

It was my understanding that Sky charge other providers the same amount for their channels? If so why are BT charging £33.50 for one channel whereas TT can provide 8 channels for less?

 

I used to pay £27 for two SS channels, ie £13.50 per channel, so an increase form £13.50 to £33.50 per channel, a 248% increase.

 

No excuse or explanation from BT, oh no, they try to make out it's an improvement!

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Contributor
980 Views
Message 324 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution
@IanW17 have Sky said that? I read something in the trade press that the idea behind having sports on new themed channels was to give Sky an idea of what sports are really worth to individual fans. As over on Sky you can now subscribe to individual channels i.e. just the cricket. The idea being that when bidding for sports in the future they have a pretty good idea of what each sport is really worth.
0 Ratings
Highlighted
Guru
959 Views
Message 325 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution

BT don't have a full wholesale agreement with Sky for their sports channels. If I remember correctly, Sky would only enter into wholesale discussions if BT agreed a wholesale agreement for BT Sports. BT at the moment sell directly to Sky customers on the Sky platform. So I presume that the latest prices reflect the direct cost, without any discount, of Sky providing their Sports channels to BT on an individual basis.

 

Perhaps it is BT thinking that their BT TV service is now strong enough to be a success without Sky Sports?

 

Stew

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Aspiring Contributor
926 Views
Message 326 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution
@Milhouse
https://www.ft.com/content/45e8a3e8-4d1e-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43

Although this relates to the Premier League to be fair.
0 Ratings
Highlighted
Aspiring Expert
886 Views
Message 327 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution

@david1982wrote:

 

Hi MadRob I'm with you. Will probably give it a go for a while and then ditch Sky sports as will have the things I like (cricket) interrupted by Formula One and GAA (whatever that is). The email from Libby Barr suggested she got a good deal (I hope she's not negotiating Brexit). I wonder if she goes on this site to read the comments.

 

GAA is Gaelic Football (played primarily in Ireland). Wouldn't think there would be a big audience for it but then again you never know.

 

If Libby Barr thought she got a good deal I'd hate to see her get a bad one.

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Aspiring Expert
781 Views
Message 328 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution

@LesC wrote:

It was my understanding that Sky charge other providers the same amount for their channels? If so why are BT charging £33.50 for one channel whereas TT can provide 8 channels for less?

 

I used to pay £27 for two SS channels, ie £13.50 per channel, so an increase form £13.50 to £33.50 per channel, a 248% increase.

 

No excuse or explanation from BT, oh no, they try to make out it's an improvement!


Sky charge a set amount across the board, even though the WMO has expired they stay within it to avoid further intervention. It's still up to the provider what they charge their own customers though. BT can't offer the full suite of Sky Sports channels because Sky don't let them have access to them. BT are only carrying Sky Sports Main Event (and Extra) because Sky have to let them have access to it, as a requirement of the WMO - mainly because it shows live Premier League matches, which is seen as the number one driver of sports subs.

 

BT were previously selling Sky Sports 1 & 2 at a loss but they have now taken the step to increase the cost... this, as alluded to previously, is because I really feel that they (BT) have grown confident in their own product. I'm not saying BT Sport is any worse or better than Sky Sports - they both have better bits than each other and so on - but I do think they're not concerned as much as they once were due to securing Premier League rights for a second time around and the further renewal of UEFA matches.

 

I don't think they will be dropping Sky Sports from their line-up at any point though because that would raise some serious eyebrows at Ofcom because of the large scale complaint from BT previously.

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Expert
732 Views
Message 329 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution

@PBS83 wrote:

@LesC wrote:

It was my understanding that Sky charge other providers the same amount for their channels? If so why are BT charging £33.50 for one channel whereas TT can provide 8 channels for less?

 

I used to pay £27 for two SS channels, ie £13.50 per channel, so an increase form £13.50 to £33.50 per channel, a 248% increase.

 

No excuse or explanation from BT, oh no, they try to make out it's an improvement!


Sky charge a set amount across the board, even though the WMO has expired they stay within it to avoid further intervention. It's still up to the provider what they charge their own customers though. BT can't offer the full suite of Sky Sports channels because Sky don't let them have access to them. BT are only carrying Sky Sports Main Event (and Extra) because Sky have to let them have access to it, as a requirement of the WMO - mainly because it shows live Premier League matches, which is seen as the number one driver of sports subs.

 

BT were previously selling Sky Sports 1 & 2 at a loss but they have now taken the step to increase the cost... this, as alluded to previously, is because I really feel that they (BT) have grown confident in their own product. I'm not saying BT Sport is any worse or better than Sky Sports - they both have better bits than each other and so on - but I do think they're not concerned as much as they once were due to securing Premier League rights for a second time around and the further renewal of UEFA matches.

 

I don't think they will be dropping Sky Sports from their line-up at any point though because that would raise some serious eyebrows at Ofcom because of the large scale complaint from BT previously.


So if Sky charge a set amount & BT are now no loger making a loss on the one channel they're providing, providers such as TT who are providng all Sky Sport channels  for less than BT charge for one channel much be making a hell of a loss. Either way, BT are choosing to fleece their customers whereas others are not.

0 Ratings
Highlighted
Aspiring Expert
727 Views
Message 330 of 540

Re: Sky sports rebrand

Go to solution

Going purely on the previous 2 posts to this I feel I must change my mind and apportion blame at BT's door also. I have been blaming Sky for the price when maybe it has been BT gambling on customer loyalty. A lot of soul searching to do this weekend.

0 Ratings