Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad
The competition between SKY and BT is great for the consumer  It's pushing almost £700 per year to watch SKY Sports, and BT Sports, in HD depending on who your provider is. I'm sure in the next 3 years this will reach an eye-watering £1000! It's seriously getting to the stage where it'll be cheaper for me to get a season ticket for Rangers, and go to the boxing once a month, than it is to watch at home.... and that includes travel costs and food. Crazy stuff  |
BT etc have been good for the consumer. There are two suppliers of PL football. One charges considerably less than the other.
BT are offering their sports service for free or extremely discounted for those who join their business. It is not their fault if people choose not to join BT and/or choose to pay for it at full whack. Sports fans on VM get it heavily discounted (no, it's fair on non sports fans) too, but is another option not to pay full price.
Sky are the company that, seemingly, over charge customers and keep the costs very high. Let's face it, how many of the games on Sky have actually been worth the cost over the past 23 years for a neutral, I imagine its a pretty low percentage.
OFCOM have given consumers a choice of which sports packages they can buy, it is not their fault if people choose to waste their money on two subscriptions, when one package could suffice.
I can't help but feel that Sky would be charging considerably more than the joint cost of SS and free/discounted BT sports, if there was no competition for them.