How long untill SkyHD is subscription free?

I really don't find sky that bad value.

I pay £48 a month for:

- Phone Line Rental
- Basic 1 Package TV
- Unlimited Broadband (16mb I think)
- HD Sub

The choice of HD channels is excellent.

I only originally went on to Sky as theres no freeview in my area, and I tried Freesat HD at the time and the channel choice was rubbish. Only BBC and Luxe then!
 
We've never had the sports since the only sport that anyone in the house watches is F1. We cancelled the movie channels years ago since it's a lot more cost effective to just buy or rent dvds/blu-rays rather than paying for what you don't want month after month. As for HD I'd be more tempted to just get a freesat hd box. I'll probably hold out until the F1 is in HD though.
 
I had a Sky contract end last week and was undecided as to whether to sign up again. After looking into it, it was the cheapest option for me because I have no aerial installed here + the free HD boxes for multiroom saved me a load on buying boxes for the other availble options.
 
Oxide™ said:
I think iv-tecman was referring to Sky themselves charging £26 for the sports package. Virgin does yes but Sky charge £18 if you are a Sky customer unless I am mistaken
Click to expand...

£18 for Sky Sports 1, Sky Sports 2, Sky Sports 3, Sky Sports 4 & Sky Sports News

If you want ESPN it will cost £27 all in all :)
 
I do kinda begrudge paying £120/year for HD as it looks virtually the same to me, however I've found the recording stuff surprisingly nice. Being a geek I've always been happy setting up recording manually etc or watching online but it really is so easy just setting up series links and then being able to watch with a few button presses, plus being able to pause live tv etc.
 
I did have Sky Sports, but I cancelled it after the dismal England performance in the World Cup. Basically Sky are the main reason why England were so **** in the World Cup, they pay for the Premier League and pay the inflated salaries of the so called England players who just couldn't be arsed to play for their country.

It is going to save me £18 a month which is quite welcome, and if I really need to see a game next season I'll go to the pub, I can't really see me wanting to watch Wigan V Blackpool or equivalent.
 
Just cancelled the HD package after reading this and thinking about it. Never really used Sky1HD or any of the others in the package. Mainly just the CH4HD, ITVHD and BBCHD. Which I'll still get. And they said the basic £18 package was going up £1 again.
 
Last edited:
psd99 said:
I totally agree with you all the price of sky tv is too high.

sports channels alone cost around £18 a month. I had broadband with them plus sports and I recently took this off along with espn and reduced my bill from £55 to £20.

I just don't know how I am going to cope with the new footballing season
Click to expand...

Sports channels is all I would want Sky for. Alas, just to get them you have to pay loads for a load of other stuff you don't want! Not a chance of me paying £47 pcm just for the sports channels. Even then you have to pay extra to get them in HD! Rip-off.
 
digipeep said:
I did have Sky Sports, but I cancelled it after the dismal England performance in the World Cup. Basically Sky are the main reason why England were so **** in the World Cup, they pay for the Premier League and pay the inflated salaries of the so called England players who just couldn't be arsed to play for their country.
Click to expand...

Well got to be honest but I totally disagree that the main reason we were poor at the world cup was because of Sky. There were many reasons, the coach taking certain players and leaving better alternatives at home, the coach not picking certain players to play in the matches , the coach not using the right subs. A lack of ability and cohesion within the team and many other reasons. If it was all down to sky then its a bit of a puzzle why we haven't been brilliant at the world cup before sky even existed. Really I know that some "fans" are desperate to scapegoat the England blame somewhere, but I think saying its skys fault why we were poor at the world cup is rather a stretch
 
Tombstone said:
Well got to be honest but I totally disagree that the main reason we were poor at the world cup was because of Sky. There were many reasons, the coach taking certain players and leaving better alternatives at home, the coach not picking certain players to play in the matches , the coach not using the right subs. A lack of ability and cohesion within the team and many other reasons. If it was all down to sky then its a bit of a puzzle why we haven't been brilliant at the world cup before sky even existed. Really I know that some "fans" are desperate to scapegoat the England blame somewhere, but I think saying its skys fault why we were poor at the world cup is rather a stretch
Click to expand...

So your scapegoat is the coach?

We digress...
 
I also recently cancelled the Movies and HD. I got tired of the same few movies being repeated (I really only got it for The Pacific) and HD @ 720p just isn't worth a tenner a month. Not missing either of them one bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom