TV Subscription costs?
 

I have noticed recently that my costs seem to high for what I have which is XL TV and Sky Sports Collection and it is currently amounting to £60. I decided to look at Sky and they only charge £21 a month for Sky Sports (when you have any entertainment package), but VM charge £25.75.

What should I do?

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

You could speak to VM to see whether they can give you a better overall bundle deal

However in regards to specific Sky Sports cost, there is nothing you can do. VM don't offer deals on the Sky Premium channels

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

Thought that was the best thing to do really. It is just stupid that it is almost £5 more to have Sky Sports on VM instead of Sky and that is without HD.

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

Not much VM can do about it unfortunately. Although Sky Sports 1 & 2 are regulated, 3, 4 and Sky Sports F1 aren't

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

They might not be able to mate, but they will lose customers for sure. That is almost £60 extra per year for just four channels and I won't be surprised if it goes up again in the near future.

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

What I mean is that Sky set the prices for the Sky Sports channels as part of the contract - so VM charge what that contract says

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

Understandable mate, but VM need to try and haggle more. There is a big difference from £21 to £25.75 a month.

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

l think it tells you everything you need to know about Sky's nefarious tactics when it comes to trying to make carriage agreements with them.

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

That they are in business to MAKE money & not subsidise competitors. It sure does:D

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

Making money is one thing Itshim but abusing your monopolistic position repeatedly is another.

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

Nothing stops other companies from bidding ( well except cash, bottle -what ever). So it is not Monopolistic.Somehow I feel we will never agree on that point:D. Of cause as I do not care about sport on TV. I am not going to get to excited about it:dozey:

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

Have to disagree with you, den - Sky may have more financial muscle, but they use it to their best advantage; that is their job.

The profits they make fund the innovations they are delivering to their customers - I understand why people are moving to Sky for TV services.

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

Yes indeed as far as TV goes Sky has innovated considerably and indeed that is good for customers in the long run but l think it gets to a point as we have seen in other sectors where you then have too much financial muscle and then some companies can start to abuse their dominant position in that market and l am not sure that is good for any of us in the long run but thats only my opinion but many others might think differently.

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

Den I agree with your point ( see my rants about Tesco :erm: which I feel is far more important, if beside the point ) How ever it is not against any law, perhaps it should be :dozey: and whilst it is not the only "weapon" available is to boycott it. Which I try to do with regard to Tesco ;)

Re: TV Subscription costs?
 

As a customer I vote with my feet and go with the cheapest and also who can provide more. I refuse to stay with a company who will just say " Well it`s what Sky charges us".

In this case we can safely say Sky and for those saying about monopolies etc it`s the way it is, not good but hey if you don`t like it start a petition and get 100,000 people.

Or Virgin could always bid for Sports rights of their own and setup studios, Pay for commentators etc..