Sky TV
-
<p>I think there is a severe ignorance from most people about the challenges Sky faces and the benefits it brings to all of us.</p>
<p>NZ sport needs Sky, Skysports is not a standalone entity, it has to be bundled with a basic package, otherwise they either charge a fortune for Sports alone, or they dont get much money.. and therefore cannot afford to sponsor or pay much for sport.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some of you guys need to be REALLY careful of what you wish for. The online model is fucking horrible for consumers. If you want as direct comparison, look at Netflix, Neon, Lightbox etc etc.. what a bloody horrible system. I like a few shows that each one of those has.. what am i supposed to do? get all 3? pay for all 3? Great.. I am paying $45 a month for ... standard TV.. and we have not even got to Sports yet. </p>
<p>The online crowd that got english soccer this year .. not getting it next year... to expensive. No money in it. But lets say they were breaking even.. another crowd gets golf (already happened), another gets cricket.. a 3rd gets rugby.. a 4th gets league.... and another gets some of the US sports.</p>
<p>I have to subscribe to 6-7 services just to get my sports? Fuck that.. it is expensive and a pain in the ass. And the kicker.... they probably wouldn't support NZ sport as much... no money in college sport. No money in club rugby.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So lets say I ditch some of the sports I like.. and only pay to watch just Rugby ,cricket.. and some US sports.. probably at least another $40 a month? And what exactly do I have?</p>
<p>Less than I currently do and 6-7 logins and online issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not as fan of the way things are going, and I think the consumer is going to pay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Sky do an average job of customer relations, but they are convenient as hell, and the cost is very reasonable. Sure I wish I could get just sport for $30 a month.. but I also wish Netflix had every single decent program in the world.. wasn't geo blocked and only cost $8 a month.</p> -
<p>And it looks like nobody is going to pick up the English premiership next year.. just to damn expensive. </p>
<p>It must be exorbitant.. because Sky must know it would geta lot of subscribers form it (not me!).. so I save my angst for the greedy pricks trying to sell these rights so Rooney can afford a harem of grannies and a new Vauxhall.</p> -
<p>I didnt even know how much Sky cost until I started reading this thread.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have had no issues with the new interface - it is definitely an improvement on the old one - and it cost me nothing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is it ideal - hell no, but it more than meets my needs which admittedley are single occupier household (so HDD is planty big enough), watches 10 hrs TV (all sources)/week.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I still find that there are times when there is "nothing to watch" but thank fuck for that because watching TV is well down my list of things I enjoy doing anyway.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When UFB finally becomes available to me, I may revisit but I'll probably just keep sky and purchase some other stuff to supplement it - and then never watch it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It seems from reading on here that their customer service sucks but they are hardly alone their. JC's apple story is great but I bet if he'd gone through the normal cs channels he'd have got short shrift.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>By NZ standards Sky and monolithic and in common with most organisations they're struggling to adjust from pretty much having a monopoly to being commoditised.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Two responses to becoming a commodity, work really hard to become special and the provider of choice will accepting that their is always going to be a sizeable minority who will show zero loyalty no matter what you do. Or decide you can afford to let the fickle pricks go because their is still a majority who through general satisfaction or inertia will stick with you unless you get really, really, really bad and you mine them for everything you can.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Loads of industries choose the second option. I don't think Sky have consciously decided on this strategy. It's probably more a case of their own inability to get in front of the wave and some internal cultural issues that have always been there but are now more obvious. Nevertheless through deliberate choice or dumb luck it could still be the best medium term approach.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wish them well because like a lot of others I think they bring value to the NZ sporting scene if not necessarily our viewing one.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="580546" data-time="1463543056"><p>I think there is a severe ignorance from most people about the challenges Sky faces and the benefits it brings to all of us.<br>
NZ sport needs Sky, Skysports is not a standalone entity, it has to be bundled with a basic package, otherwise they either charge a fortune for Sports alone, or they dont get much money.. and therefore cannot afford to sponsor or pay much for sport.<br>
<br>
Some of you guys need to be REALLY careful of what you wish for. The online model is fucking horrible for consumers. If you want as direct comparison, look at Netflix, Neon, Lightbox etc etc.. what a bloody horrible system. I like a few shows that each one of those has.. what am i supposed to do? get all 3? pay for all 3? Great.. I am paying $45 a month for ... standard TV.. and we have not even got to Sports yet. <br>
The online crowd that got english soccer this year .. not getting it next year... to expensive. No money in it. But lets say they were breaking even.. another crowd gets golf (already happened), another gets cricket.. a 3rd gets rugby.. a 4th gets league.... and another gets some of the US sports.<br>
I have to subscribe to 6-7 services just to get my sports? Fuck that.. it is expensive and a pain in the ass. And the kicker.... they probably wouldn't support NZ sport as much... no money in college sport. No money in club rugby.<br>
<br>
So lets say I ditch some of the sports I like.. and only pay to watch just Rugby ,cricket.. and some US sports.. probably at least another $40 a month? And what exactly do I have?<br>
Less than I currently do and 6-7 logins and online issues.<br>
<br>
I am not as fan of the way things are going, and I think the consumer is going to pay.<br>
<br>
I think Sky do an average job of customer relations, but they are convenient as hell, and the cost is very reasonable. Sure I wish I could get just sport for $30 a month.. but I also wish Netflix had every single decent program in the world.. wasn't geo blocked and only cost $8 a month.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Very good points BSG. I don't think Sky don't have a place in my lounge, I think they aren't really clear in their own mind what that place is. They don't seem to get that in many ways people's perceptions are at least as important as reality, and the perception among many is that the overall price of their offering is inflated by forcing customers to pay for a basic offering that is really no better than what the terrestrials offer. They don't offer anything like the UK's Sky One channel that commissions its own content and that's a problem because they don't have a differentiator that isn't on an extra cost channel: dramas on SoHo, rugby and netball on Sky Sports and... what else? <br><br>
And things are going to get worse, as you say. The core consumers are probably middle aged like me. When today's teens have their own households how many will pay for Sky?<br><br>
I want Sky to do well for the very reason you give, i.e. that they fund rugby to a level nobody else is likely to. But they're not showing many signs that they have plans to keep them in the game longer term. They make it as difficult as possible to be loyal. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="580590" data-time="1463555491">
<div>
<p>Very good points BSG. I don't think Sky don't have a place in my lounge, I think they aren't really clear in their own mind what that place is. They don't seem to get that in many ways people's perceptions are at least as important as reality, and the perception among many is that the overall price of their offering is inflated by forcing customers to pay for a basic offering that is really no better than what the terrestrials offer. They don't offer anything like the UK's Sky One channel that commissions its own content and that's a problem because they don't have a differentiator that isn't on an extra cost channel: dramas on SoHo, rugby and netball on Sky Sports and... what else?<br><br>
And things are going to get worse, as you say. The core consumers are probably middle aged like me. When today's teens have their own households how many will pay for Sky?<br><br>
I want Sky to do well for the very reason you give, i.e. that they fund rugby to a level nobody else is likely to. But they're not showing many signs that they have plans to keep them in the game longer term. They make it as difficult as possible to be loyal.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Sure they dont commision shows. But I think the basic package is getting better, The Zone (very good sci fi stuff), Duke, Jones, Comedy Central ,The Box(plenty of good shows IMO)... all channels that offer standard TV fare. I think they have actually made an incredible effort to up the content game.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree they are in trouble, but part of me thinks it Turkeys voting for xmas. Sky has been good for NZ and very good for NZ sport.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The middle age curmudgeon on me thinks a Sky news channel would be good, that actually.. you know.. did journalism. Give up on netrality, have shows with no shame about bias, give Cameron Slater an hour, give Bomber Bradbury an hour.</p>
<p>Yeah... probably a bad idea.. but a lot of fun</p> -
<p>you mean SkyNZ that is a NZ channel rather than the Aus one labelled Sky NZ?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree there is some good content in the Basic package, and I;d say that is thier bread and butter and where they make the bigger margins, whereas the SS and Movie channels are probably all but breaking even...</p> -
Slater AND Bradbury on a Sky News Channel? Well, that's not grounds for cancelling Sky. <br><br>
That's grounds for nuking my TV from orbit...<br><br>
Though, there's definitely room for something other than the Ferald, Stuffed, and One News making a live cross to where something happened ten hours ago.. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="580546" data-time="1463543056">
<div>
<p>I think there is a severe ignorance from most people about the challenges Sky faces and the benefits it brings to all of us.</p>
<p>NZ sport needs Sky, Skysports is not a standalone entity, it has to be bundled with a basic package, otherwise they either charge a fortune for Sports alone, or they dont get much money.. and therefore cannot afford to sponsor or pay much for sport.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some of you guys need to be REALLY careful of what you wish for. The online model is fucking horrible for consumers. If you want as direct comparison, look at Netflix, Neon, Lightbox etc etc.. what a bloody horrible system. I like a few shows that each one of those has.. what am i supposed to do? get all 3? pay for all 3? Great.. I am paying $45 a month for ... standard TV.. and we have not even got to Sports yet. </p>
<p>The online crowd that got english soccer this year .. not getting it next year... to expensive. No money in it. But lets say they were breaking even.. another crowd gets golf (already happened), another gets cricket.. a 3rd gets rugby.. a 4th gets league.... and another gets some of the US sports.</p>
<p>I have to subscribe to 6-7 services just to get my sports? Fuck that.. it is expensive and a pain in the ass. And the kicker.... they probably wouldn't support NZ sport as much... no money in college sport. No money in club rugby.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So lets say I ditch some of the sports I like.. and only pay to watch just Rugby ,cricket.. and some US sports.. probably at least another $40 a month? And what exactly do I have?</p>
<p>Less than I currently do and 6-7 logins and online issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not as fan of the way things are going, and I think the consumer is going to pay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Sky do an average job of customer relations, but they are convenient as hell, and the cost is very reasonable. Sure I wish I could get just sport for $30 a month.. but I also wish Netflix had every single decent program in the world.. wasn't geo blocked and only cost $8 a month.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I have found some of the comments in here interesting. It's definitely a good idea for Sky to bundle their products. It's a lot easier to negotiate when you are in Sky's position than an independent provider. If you enjoy any niche sports at all they will all go as soon as Sky is off TV. Tennis, sevens, A-League, NBL, triathlon, domestic netball, cricket. A lot of those sports there just isn't the subscriber base for an independent provider to provide an unbundled package. Even if Sky just unbundled their spots package from the basic package there would still be a lot of problems. Sky already have released a season pass for Super Rugby and it was way too expensive for people to actually buy it. Sky Sports without the basic package would still be very expensive and then you are screwed if you want to watch both.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not saying Sky's current pricing structure is the best for the consumer but it is definitely best for Sky.</p> -
<p>Interesting read on the differing viewpoints. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I completely agree with BSG that it would be a pain in the ass to have to subscribe to half a dozen different subscribers to pick up all the sports I want to watch, but the problem is sky is already losing sports, but their pricing is increasing. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>For example, they lost the English premiership (I don't watch it, but it's still not there for me if I wanted to watch it) and the price remained the same. They're no longer the only channel showing NFL or NBA so they don't have a monopoly on that anymore. In fact, with watch and bet on the TAB, you can basically watch any NBA game you want so long as you have money in your account, albeit in pretty average quality. They couldn't provide the South African cricket tour last year, yet their price remained the same, despite calling themselves the home of cricket. Throughout the five years we were with sky, we had price rises almost every year. Not big ones, but rises nonetheless. Couple that with what seems to be a massive increase in ads and it seems you're paying more but getting less. Then if I want to watch the Joseph Parker fights, I pay and extra $40 for one sided undercard bouts and fights that thus far have struggled to get past the second round (I know PPV is a different kettle of fish as well). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>And that's just the sport. Sky Movies channel just seems to play the same 10 movies on repeat throughout a week and I've seen every simpsons re-run on The Box. I'd have to pay more to get rialto, SoHo, the arts channel (or whatever that channel is that plays all the rock concerts) which are some of the only things I'd really want to watch on there. Plus, I can't watch any of the TVNZ pop-up channels unless I unplug my skybox and work out how to use freeview. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not saying it'd be a good thing for Sky TV to lose it's customer base and start to struggle. I really enjoyed mysky and the convenience that things like series-link offered. But I'm not gonna just keep absent mindedly paying the increases if I don't feel it offers me good value for money anymore. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess our decision that we would ditch them was backgrounded by the fact that with a young family the weekends of watching 3 games of super rugby and 3 games of NRL were pretty much gone, and Monday/Tuesday afternoon NFL plans were scuttled by daycare pickups etc. The only sport I would watch with any regularity now are Warriors, All Blacks and BoP Steamers games, plus the occasional game of NFL football when I had a spare 3 and a half hours. Even then, two of those four are often pretty hard to watch.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some kind of pay per view option for Warriors or All Blacks games would have been an ideal set up for us. </p> -
<p>This is the official line on the website:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p> </p>
<p>We are aware that not every SKY customer has the same viewing requirements, and because of the way we package our programming we are not able to supply the exact mix of channels to suit all of our customers.</p>
<div> </div>
<div>Our packages are designed to provide a broad mix of channels to cater for most tastes. Most pay television companies worldwide operate in the same manner, as the matrix of package choices to support "ala carte" viewing is very complicated.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It would be wonderful if customers were able to tailor packages to their viewing preferences, but the reality is that it would be no cheaper for you to choose the channels you request as they would be more expensive on an individual basis.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Check out our prices and packages for a breakdown of which channels are included in our packages and our current prices.</div>
</blockquote> -
I'd recommend rugbypass.com, it gets all rugby and all rugby league. $15 usd per month.<br><br>
It's only available for Asia but a vpn will do the trick. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="581175" data-time="1463794282">
<div>
<p>I'd recommend rugbypass.com, it gets all rugby and all rugby league. $15 usd per month.<br><br>
It's only available for Asia but a vpn will do the trick.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Allegedly, Tunnelbear is a great VPN - no logging, very simple to use, strong security, mobile options as well.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Allegedly Ironsocket is also a great VPN - no logging, strong security, still works with Netflix...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Or so I've heard...</p> -
<p>Related.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13254575_1096344687091400_7601775431735102178_n.png?oh=3043aefacfba591330c136c38ae0e96e&oe=57D11A06" alt="13254575_1096344687091400_76017754317351"></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="580546" data-time="1463543056">
<div>
<p>I think there is a severe ignorance from most people about the challenges Sky faces and the benefits it brings to all of us.</p>
<p>NZ sport needs Sky, Skysports is not a standalone entity, it has to be bundled with a basic package, otherwise they either charge a fortune for Sports alone, or they dont get much money.. and therefore cannot afford to sponsor or pay much for sport.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some of you guys need to be REALLY careful of what you wish for. The online model is fucking horrible for consumers. If you want as direct comparison, look at Netflix, Neon, Lightbox etc etc.. what a bloody horrible system. I like a few shows that each one of those has.. what am i supposed to do? get all 3? pay for all 3? Great.. I am paying $45 a month for ... standard TV.. and we have not even got to Sports yet. </p>
<p>The online crowd that got english soccer this year .. not getting it next year... to expensive. No money in it. But lets say they were breaking even.. another crowd gets golf (already happened), another gets cricket.. a 3rd gets rugby.. a 4th gets league.... and another gets some of the US sports.</p>
<p>I have to subscribe to 6-7 services just to get my sports? Fuck that.. it is expensive and a pain in the ass. And the kicker.... they probably wouldn't support NZ sport as much... no money in college sport. No money in club rugby.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So lets say I ditch some of the sports I like.. and only pay to watch just Rugby ,cricket.. and some US sports.. probably at least another $40 a month? And what exactly do I have?</p>
<p>Less than I currently do and 6-7 logins and online issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not as fan of the way things are going, and I think the consumer is going to pay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Sky do an average job of customer relations, but they are convenient as hell, and the cost is very reasonable. Sure I wish I could get just sport for $30 a month.. but I also wish Netflix had every single decent program in the world.. wasn't geo blocked and only cost $8 a month.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>This is more or less what happened in the UK.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Used to be able to get Sky Sports 1 & 2 & you had literally all the good sport going.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>People hated that Sky was getting all the good sport. BT got given a leg up by the regulator. So now you can watch cricket & 50% of premership soccer on Sky, if you want to watch British & European club rugby you need BT. Test rugby is still on Sky. And the other 50% of the soccer? on BT. As is the champions league soccer.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And Sky used to show almost all the top line sport (rugby, soccer cricket) on Sky sports 1 & 2. But then the regulator made them make those available to Virgin. So now the Rugby Championship games are on Sky Sports 4.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So its a nice competitive market, in which the viewer is fucked. </p> -
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11652781'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11652781</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sky to buy Vodafone...?</p> -
<p>About to switch Sports back on for the test and Mitre 10 Cup, but thought I'd check out how much Fanpass is - $14.99 for a day, $19.99 per week or $55.99 for a month! </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So 2 months worth of sports on my TV for the same price it costs for a month on Fanpass....wonder if the merger will make that price better? </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="586119" data-time="1465539842"><p>
About to switch Sports back on for the test and Mitre 10 Cup, but thought I'd check out how much Fanpass is - $14.99 for a day, $19.99 per week or $55.99 for a month! <br><br>
So 2 months worth of sports on my TV for the same price it costs for a month on Fanpass....wonder if the merger will make that price better?</p></blockquote>
<br>
Probably not - the fanpass doesn't require having Sky at all, so if you don't want basic Sky, the fanpass is cheaper than Sky + Sky Sport. They can't make it too much cheaper or people will start cutting the cord. -
Disagree....but anyway, hope fan pass streaming is better than SkyGo....I thought I'd try that last night to free up the main tv...jeez I just as well used one of the free streams you can find. <br><br>
Will this merger fix this issue? -
Big problem with Fanpass is that it only shows events on SS1,2,3 and 4. Anything shown on a pop up channel doesn't come through. Sky tend to put many major events on pop ups now (F1, V8s, Tennis, Euro, Olympics etc)<br>
As for Sky(not)Go, I suspect they are actually using offshore providers to provide the servers for the stream. I am also guessing that they pay by capacity. If they underestimate then it crashes for many users. For NZ rugby games the stream is probably crossing the pacific twice before you get it and they are also possibly paying for bandwidth on the cable as well.