The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Comments on: Sky customers spending more than £400 a year

Press the red button to sell you Granny 

Posted Wednesday 2nd May 2007 10:50 GMT

"Sky could do with some good news right now. It's been a rough week for the company, with Virgin, Ofcom, and the Office of Fair Trading all accusing it of abusing its dominant position"

And the good news is that by (allegedly) abusing its dominant position, it's managed to up its ARPU to over £400 !

Four times better? 

Posted Wednesday 2nd May 2007 10:56 GMT

Nice to know that since what punters are paying for Sky is creeping closer to four times the TV license, it's nice to actually see some figures on what a Sky-dominated TV market would actually cost the viewer. 400 quid a year for crap like Lost and 24? Hmm...sounds like a deal to me!

TV Tax 

Posted Wednesday 2nd May 2007 11:44 GMT

Don't forget Kevin that you have to pay the TV Tax/License on top of that 400 quid....

Sky HD Rip Off 

Posted Wednesday 2nd May 2007 15:35 GMT

I was an early adopter of Sky Digital and Sky+, and I pre-ordered Sky HD, however, when the demo boxes were released I took one look at the line up and picture quality, cancelled my order and haven't looked back.

Why?

For £10 extra a month, there's no content, and the quality's poor. In fact, the only channel worth having HD for is free - BBC HD. All the other HD channels show the same stuff on repeat. And soon you'll be able to get BBC HD for free on the BBC's Freesat Service.

And for movies? Just buy a cheapy HD-DVD add-on for an XBox or buy a PS3 and use BluRay and watch the movies in better quality (1080p) than the Sky HD service (720p/1080i) which still suffers IMHO from awful artefacts and pixellation due to limited bandwidth. Agreed, it's better than it was, but it's still bad.

TV Tax indeed. 

Posted Wednesday 2nd May 2007 21:13 GMT

I'd rather pay four hundred for something I want than one hundred for something I don't! Sky must be raking it in since they're getting that much from their customers and advertising revenue on top. Of course that's tailed off a bit since the Virgin incident...

I haven't tried Sky HD myself though I've heard bad things. Just looking at what's on offer it doesn't seem like you get very much for your tenner.

and I thought I had it bad with Virgin HD... 

Posted Thursday 3rd May 2007 00:33 GMT

At least we get a reasonable HD on-demand content to boot....just sucks not being able to watch Sky Sports in HD. I guess after the last fight with Sky, they aren't going to be falling over themselves to sell Sports/Movies HD to Virgin any time :(

HD is Not All Bad 

Posted Friday 4th May 2007 10:43 GMT

I have been a Sky HD customer since launch, and agree that there does need to be more content, and there will be in time and as demand increases - but I have to say that once you have watched Premiership Footie in HD, there really is no going back to "nornal" telly. This is worth every penny of the £10 per month to have HD. Also, the HD box looks cool, is fast and can store an unbelieveable amount of recorded content on the 160GB space they give you. So unless you have actually lived with HD for a while, you won't know what you're missing.

Don't forget, ARPU is average 

Posted Thursday 10th May 2007 12:28 GMT

I paid £522 per year for sky and didn't have HD or sky+ and never used box office. So I make that £642 a year for HD ?

I dumped sky in October. Sure, I miss the sport, but no way am I paying that much.

Don’t Miss

email symbolStill sending naked email? Get your protection here

Security How-to Buckle your seatbelt, encrypt your bits

Google's Satan phoneT-Mobile G1 Google Android-based smartphone

Review Operating System 1, Hardware 0

Ubuntu teaser Ubuntu 8.10 - All Hail new Network Manager

Review The good kind of UI theft

OpenOffice_logoOpenOffice 3.0 - the only option for masochistic Linux users

Review And linear optimizing Mactards