GM
nodnirG kraM
Very Freeview-biased that report!!
bbc.co.uk posted:
BSkyB's free-to-air package will offer more channels than Freeview's several dozen channels, but at a cost of £150 against anywhere from £50 to £120 for a digital terrestrial set-top box.
...
The product must be bought directly from Sky while Freeview boxes are widely available in shops.
...
The product must be bought directly from Sky while Freeview boxes are widely available in shops.
AS
Stating the facts as they are Mark - you can always count on the BBC for that...
nodnirG kraM posted:
Quote:
Very Freeview-biased that report!!
[quote=bbc.co.uk]BSkyB's free-to-air package will offer more channels than Freeview's several dozen channels, but at a cost of £150 against anywhere from £50 to £120 for a digital terrestrial set-top box.
...
The product must be bought directly from Sky while Freeview boxes are widely available in shops.
[quote=bbc.co.uk]BSkyB's free-to-air package will offer more channels than Freeview's several dozen channels, but at a cost of £150 against anywhere from £50 to £120 for a digital terrestrial set-top box.
...
The product must be bought directly from Sky while Freeview boxes are widely available in shops.
Stating the facts as they are Mark - you can always count on the BBC for that...
GM
nodnirG kraM
Aston posted:
Stating the facts as they are Mark - you can always count on the BBC for that...
There is barely a minute separating our posts ... are you stalking me or something?!
CW
cwathen
Founding member
Hmm, I'm a bit intrigued by this. Are Sky actually developing a new FTA package here, or are they simply more greatly marketing something that allready exists?
From the word go, you were able to have Sky Digital installed without a subscription and just watch the free channels, and IIRC, doing that now costs £150 - exactly what they are saying this service will cost.
And the only channels mentioned are and always have been free anyway, and by 'plus other free channels', do they mean the myriad number of shopping channels which, again, or allready free anyway (and they surely have got to feature quite highly in the '115 TV Channels' that are touted.
Similarly, all but a handful of radio channels are FTA, as are all the interactive services available from the Interactive button.
Until they actually start naming channels and name something which isn't allready there for free, I don't see that they are actually 'launching' a new 'product' at all, they are just trying to more heavily promote a pre-existing service.
And if people who would potentially buy this service are, like most people, just interested in getting the TV and radio channels and couldn't care less about gimmicky interactive service and wouldn't mind not having the Sky Guide, they can get it for a lot less than £150 by buying an FTA Dsat receiver - the other day I think Lidl's was selling them with a dish inside £80 weren't they?
What could seriously get Sky more customers is the launch of a viable low ARPU channel package. Whilst they do have basic packages available for more modest prices, they either offer extremely poor value for money (such as the 'starter' pack, for which you are paying a £10.99/month subscription just to get Sky One and Home&Leisure - all the other channels they list as coming with the package are FTA!) or else they don't offer a comprehensive enough channel choice (there are the 'kids pack', 'music pack', 'entertainment pack' etc packages - yet almost everyone will find there is at least one channel they really want which isn't in their ideal package - i.e. rather ludicriously, UK Gold and Granada Plus - both musts for anyone interested in classic TV, do not appear in the same package under this system).
With Sky, you really have to go all the way up the family package in order to get a decent selection of channels on Sky. Admittedly you do get a hell of a lot of channels (basically every channel there is except for premium channels), but by the same token it does cost £19.50/month and rises above inflation every year - it wasn't that long ago that it was only £12.99.
I realise of course, that Sky doesn't want it's cheaper packages to appear particularly attractive, but instead view the family package as being the absolute minimum they are happy with a subcriber having, and will try their hardest to upsell them on that, since Sky are now targetting mid/high ARPU subscribers. But taking that approach, especially with the price of the family pack ever more going through the roof, they are making themselves unattractive for people with more modest budgets.
Since they are developing a proper service to mirror Freeview (if indeed that is what they are doing), then imo this is an excellent opportunity for them to mirror the DTT condition and create a low ARPU subscription option, similar to that provided by Top Up TV, too.
They could pull together the same channel choice as Top Up offers, with Sky One aswell (and of course with all channels available for their full transmission hours, possibly even with the +1's where applicable) to replace the present 'basic' channel package, but sold at the same price of £10.99. That won't instantly result in everyone ditching their family pack subscriptions and downgrading to basic, because (assuming it really was Top Up TV channels all day + Sky One) it would still be missing a lot of the choice available with the higher level packages - i.e. the main killer kids channel, Nickelodeon, wouldn't be there, nor would any of the (subscription) music channels either, nor the extended channel family of Discovery, etc.
Whilst Sky of course does hold it's subcriber base pretty well, the next price hike for the family pack, which will send it over the £20 barrier I feel will make it appear too inaccessible for new customers. On the one hand, suddenly £20+ / month for pay TV seems a lot, on the other, for most people the more basic packages just aren't worth looking at. Result, they just won't get Sky.
Seeing how Top Up TV is apparantly doing quite well with the somewhat akward operating conditions they have, the opportunity for Sky to seriously get back into low ARPU I think should be investigated - and this seems a natural time to do it. After all, they provide mid and high ARPU serivces, they are are going to provide a no ARPU service, they might aswell look into providing a serious, viable, low ARPU service too. That way, there would be a Sky product for every multi channel TV user, from those who pay extortionate monthly subscriptions that, frankly, I wouldn't pay if I had the money, right down to those who pay nothing.
From the word go, you were able to have Sky Digital installed without a subscription and just watch the free channels, and IIRC, doing that now costs £150 - exactly what they are saying this service will cost.
And the only channels mentioned are and always have been free anyway, and by 'plus other free channels', do they mean the myriad number of shopping channels which, again, or allready free anyway (and they surely have got to feature quite highly in the '115 TV Channels' that are touted.
Similarly, all but a handful of radio channels are FTA, as are all the interactive services available from the Interactive button.
Until they actually start naming channels and name something which isn't allready there for free, I don't see that they are actually 'launching' a new 'product' at all, they are just trying to more heavily promote a pre-existing service.
And if people who would potentially buy this service are, like most people, just interested in getting the TV and radio channels and couldn't care less about gimmicky interactive service and wouldn't mind not having the Sky Guide, they can get it for a lot less than £150 by buying an FTA Dsat receiver - the other day I think Lidl's was selling them with a dish inside £80 weren't they?
What could seriously get Sky more customers is the launch of a viable low ARPU channel package. Whilst they do have basic packages available for more modest prices, they either offer extremely poor value for money (such as the 'starter' pack, for which you are paying a £10.99/month subscription just to get Sky One and Home&Leisure - all the other channels they list as coming with the package are FTA!) or else they don't offer a comprehensive enough channel choice (there are the 'kids pack', 'music pack', 'entertainment pack' etc packages - yet almost everyone will find there is at least one channel they really want which isn't in their ideal package - i.e. rather ludicriously, UK Gold and Granada Plus - both musts for anyone interested in classic TV, do not appear in the same package under this system).
With Sky, you really have to go all the way up the family package in order to get a decent selection of channels on Sky. Admittedly you do get a hell of a lot of channels (basically every channel there is except for premium channels), but by the same token it does cost £19.50/month and rises above inflation every year - it wasn't that long ago that it was only £12.99.
I realise of course, that Sky doesn't want it's cheaper packages to appear particularly attractive, but instead view the family package as being the absolute minimum they are happy with a subcriber having, and will try their hardest to upsell them on that, since Sky are now targetting mid/high ARPU subscribers. But taking that approach, especially with the price of the family pack ever more going through the roof, they are making themselves unattractive for people with more modest budgets.
Since they are developing a proper service to mirror Freeview (if indeed that is what they are doing), then imo this is an excellent opportunity for them to mirror the DTT condition and create a low ARPU subscription option, similar to that provided by Top Up TV, too.
They could pull together the same channel choice as Top Up offers, with Sky One aswell (and of course with all channels available for their full transmission hours, possibly even with the +1's where applicable) to replace the present 'basic' channel package, but sold at the same price of £10.99. That won't instantly result in everyone ditching their family pack subscriptions and downgrading to basic, because (assuming it really was Top Up TV channels all day + Sky One) it would still be missing a lot of the choice available with the higher level packages - i.e. the main killer kids channel, Nickelodeon, wouldn't be there, nor would any of the (subscription) music channels either, nor the extended channel family of Discovery, etc.
Whilst Sky of course does hold it's subcriber base pretty well, the next price hike for the family pack, which will send it over the £20 barrier I feel will make it appear too inaccessible for new customers. On the one hand, suddenly £20+ / month for pay TV seems a lot, on the other, for most people the more basic packages just aren't worth looking at. Result, they just won't get Sky.
Seeing how Top Up TV is apparantly doing quite well with the somewhat akward operating conditions they have, the opportunity for Sky to seriously get back into low ARPU I think should be investigated - and this seems a natural time to do it. After all, they provide mid and high ARPU serivces, they are are going to provide a no ARPU service, they might aswell look into providing a serious, viable, low ARPU service too. That way, there would be a Sky product for every multi channel TV user, from those who pay extortionate monthly subscriptions that, frankly, I wouldn't pay if I had the money, right down to those who pay nothing.
DJ
Whilst Sky of course does hold it's subcriber base pretty well, the next price
hike for the family pack, which will send it over the £20 barrier I feel will
make it appear too inaccessible for new customers.
Ever since I subcribing to Sky , I decided from the outset that I would never pay more than £20 per month for it,
no matter what channels are available. IMHO, as soon as the Sky Family Pack (to which I currently subscribe)
tips that particular balance, and starts to cost more than £20 per month, I'll phone Sky, and threaten to cancel
my subscription. If there's one thing that a company don't like, it's losing a customer, for whatever reason,
so I assume they'll hit the panic button, and try and persuade me to stay on as a subscriber.
Perhaps (hopefully) they'll try bribe me with a discounted subscription to my current package . . . !
So what if that's tantamount to blackmail? Sky have an effective monopoly, so I don't care!
cwathen posted:
Whilst Sky of course does hold it's subcriber base pretty well, the next price
hike for the family pack, which will send it over the £20 barrier I feel will
make it appear too inaccessible for new customers.
Ever since I subcribing to Sky , I decided from the outset that I would never pay more than £20 per month for it,
no matter what channels are available. IMHO, as soon as the Sky Family Pack (to which I currently subscribe)
tips that particular balance, and starts to cost more than £20 per month, I'll phone Sky, and threaten to cancel
my subscription. If there's one thing that a company don't like, it's losing a customer, for whatever reason,
so I assume they'll hit the panic button, and try and persuade me to stay on as a subscriber.
Perhaps (hopefully) they'll try bribe me with a discounted subscription to my current package . . . !
So what if that's tantamount to blackmail? Sky have an effective monopoly, so I don't care!
MS
Doesn't this show that BSkyB are (a little?) phased by the BBC's potential proposal to launch
FreeSat
.
Sky's proposals would enable them to remain in control of the platform, whilst a population of unsubsidised and unsubscribed D-SAT BSkyB receivers grew in non-Sky households. These households would have a direct upgrade path to BSkyB and BDB services either via an online transaction, or by calling the subs mgt centre.
The BBC proposal would however give households a potentially cheaper, and open market solution to FreeSat, whilst presenting the possibility of a rival to Sky emerging as a D-SAT subscription TV provider.
Sky's FreeSat proposition is not new. The business is scalable enough to offer perpetually free (both FTV and FTA) services to un-subsidised boxes, by offsetting the potential gain of a future upgrade against the interim cost of subs management for FTV services.
But, my wager's still on the BBC proposition, Mr Grade should pursue this relentlessly in the face of what might, it appears, be a BSkyB spoiler.
Sky's proposals would enable them to remain in control of the platform, whilst a population of unsubsidised and unsubscribed D-SAT BSkyB receivers grew in non-Sky households. These households would have a direct upgrade path to BSkyB and BDB services either via an online transaction, or by calling the subs mgt centre.
The BBC proposal would however give households a potentially cheaper, and open market solution to FreeSat, whilst presenting the possibility of a rival to Sky emerging as a D-SAT subscription TV provider.
Sky's FreeSat proposition is not new. The business is scalable enough to offer perpetually free (both FTV and FTA) services to un-subsidised boxes, by offsetting the potential gain of a future upgrade against the interim cost of subs management for FTV services.
But, my wager's still on the BBC proposition, Mr Grade should pursue this relentlessly in the face of what might, it appears, be a BSkyB spoiler.
CW
Well...Sky are not averse to bribery if it will keep their customer base up. I do know someone who threatened to cancel their family package when it went up to £19.50. They were tempted away from doing so because Sky then let them have Sky World for the price of the family package for 6 months - so they've now got a £40 package for £19.50.
That's another reason why Sky should introduce a proper low ARPU package. Now customers who ring up to cancel and cruicially, really will cancel and aren't just trying to blag a discounted subscription, could be coaxed onto a £10.99 basic package which would still give them a good selection of channels and is much more likely to appeal than the present basic package. Sky might then only get half the subscription revenue, but it's better than nothing at all, and is surely a better situation than keeping people paying £19.50 for another 6 months, but only keeping them my offering them a package which is supposed to cost twice as much, people who in all likelihood will just cancel after the 6 months anyway because the basic problem - that Sky costs more than they are prepared to pay - won't go away.
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
Perhaps (hopefully) they'll try bribe me with a discounted subscription to my current package . . . !
Well...Sky are not averse to bribery if it will keep their customer base up. I do know someone who threatened to cancel their family package when it went up to £19.50. They were tempted away from doing so because Sky then let them have Sky World for the price of the family package for 6 months - so they've now got a £40 package for £19.50.
That's another reason why Sky should introduce a proper low ARPU package. Now customers who ring up to cancel and cruicially, really will cancel and aren't just trying to blag a discounted subscription, could be coaxed onto a £10.99 basic package which would still give them a good selection of channels and is much more likely to appeal than the present basic package. Sky might then only get half the subscription revenue, but it's better than nothing at all, and is surely a better situation than keeping people paying £19.50 for another 6 months, but only keeping them my offering them a package which is supposed to cost twice as much, people who in all likelihood will just cancel after the 6 months anyway because the basic problem - that Sky costs more than they are prepared to pay - won't go away.
ST
I also see this as merely a spoiler tactic.
Freesat should be free and as such I don't see the need for there to be services as FTV as opposed to FTA.
Also - I'm willing to bet either sky will decide not to make the new card available on its own, or they will turn off every type of freeview card currently currently in existance. ....******* they are.
Freesat should be free and as such I don't see the need for there to be services as FTV as opposed to FTA.
Also - I'm willing to bet either sky will decide not to make the new card available on its own, or they will turn off every type of freeview card currently currently in existance. ....******* they are.
CW
Well the obvious case for Sky making their free service FTV instead of FTA is that the latter locks users of it into getting it from Sky and thus will give them a Sky box with a Sky viewing card in it in their front room. This then means that should any of the users decide to subscribe to Sky (which is their ultimate hope) they can be switched on almost instantly. Just as, now, a Sky subcriber who doesn't have Sky Movies and then is particularly tempted by something they'd like to see in an hour, just has to make one phone call and Sky Movies is added to their subscription, so could an Freesat customer who sees something on Sky's pay service they want to watch could make the same quick phone call and be switched on just as easily.
How can they 'turn off every type of freeview card currently in existance'? The original Solus cards were not 'turned off' as such, they became obsolete as Sky updated their encryption system, and the BBC-funded infrastructure which issued the cards in the first place no longer existed as they had moved to FTA transmission so there was no direct replacement for them.
Following that, I see no reason why the replacement cards (which people have paid for this time) will be deactivated - they will doubtless become obsolete again in time, but I can't see why they'd be specifically 'turned off' - if indeed Sky would ever be allowed to do this. After all, the only thing they do is unencrypt ITV, C4 and C5 and actually work to Sky's advantage, since with the card in, all the subscription channels are visible in the EPG too, so potential customers can see what they are missing. With an invalid card in the slot (or no card at all) the box filters out all but the FTA channels from the EPG, so the subtle sell approach which Sky enjoys by users of a valid FTV card is lost.
What I do think likely however, is that some of the presently FTA channels will become FTV - but only FTV with a new Freesat card (and of course with a Sky Digital subscription card), which will take these channels away from people who presently get them for free and have a Free2View card (the £23.50 cards that replaced the Solus cards).
If they want those channels back (along with whatever other - if any - new channels Sky put into this service), they will then have to get the official Sky FTV service.
Whilst I'm sure Sky would want most people to go through the £150 box+installation+card route, I can't imagine that they wouldn't sell the cards separately. For one thing it would be cutting off an important source of revenue from those who presently have Free2View cards (and if I'm right, will loose some of the channels they currently have) and want to move up to the better free service from Sky.
I'd imagine accessibility to Sky's free service will work in exactly the same way as Sky's subscription service; all the literature they print sells it as a complete package with installation of equipment, but even though they'd don't shout about it, it's still possible to just ring up Sky and, subscribe and receive a viewing card in the post to use with your existing equipment without a new installation taking place. In the same way, I'm sure most/all of the marketing will push the fully installed with equipment £150 deal, but I still think it entirely likely that you'll be able to ring them up, tell them you allready have a Sky box, and just be sent a card for the service for a set fee which is nowhere near £150.
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
Freesat should be free and as such I don't see the need for there to be services as FTV as opposed to FTA.
Well the obvious case for Sky making their free service FTV instead of FTA is that the latter locks users of it into getting it from Sky and thus will give them a Sky box with a Sky viewing card in it in their front room. This then means that should any of the users decide to subscribe to Sky (which is their ultimate hope) they can be switched on almost instantly. Just as, now, a Sky subcriber who doesn't have Sky Movies and then is particularly tempted by something they'd like to see in an hour, just has to make one phone call and Sky Movies is added to their subscription, so could an Freesat customer who sees something on Sky's pay service they want to watch could make the same quick phone call and be switched on just as easily.
Quote:
Also - I'm willing to bet either sky will decide not to make the new card available on its own, or they will turn off every type of freeview card currently currently in existance. ....******* they are.
How can they 'turn off every type of freeview card currently in existance'? The original Solus cards were not 'turned off' as such, they became obsolete as Sky updated their encryption system, and the BBC-funded infrastructure which issued the cards in the first place no longer existed as they had moved to FTA transmission so there was no direct replacement for them.
Following that, I see no reason why the replacement cards (which people have paid for this time) will be deactivated - they will doubtless become obsolete again in time, but I can't see why they'd be specifically 'turned off' - if indeed Sky would ever be allowed to do this. After all, the only thing they do is unencrypt ITV, C4 and C5 and actually work to Sky's advantage, since with the card in, all the subscription channels are visible in the EPG too, so potential customers can see what they are missing. With an invalid card in the slot (or no card at all) the box filters out all but the FTA channels from the EPG, so the subtle sell approach which Sky enjoys by users of a valid FTV card is lost.
What I do think likely however, is that some of the presently FTA channels will become FTV - but only FTV with a new Freesat card (and of course with a Sky Digital subscription card), which will take these channels away from people who presently get them for free and have a Free2View card (the £23.50 cards that replaced the Solus cards).
If they want those channels back (along with whatever other - if any - new channels Sky put into this service), they will then have to get the official Sky FTV service.
Whilst I'm sure Sky would want most people to go through the £150 box+installation+card route, I can't imagine that they wouldn't sell the cards separately. For one thing it would be cutting off an important source of revenue from those who presently have Free2View cards (and if I'm right, will loose some of the channels they currently have) and want to move up to the better free service from Sky.
I'd imagine accessibility to Sky's free service will work in exactly the same way as Sky's subscription service; all the literature they print sells it as a complete package with installation of equipment, but even though they'd don't shout about it, it's still possible to just ring up Sky and, subscribe and receive a viewing card in the post to use with your existing equipment without a new installation taking place. In the same way, I'm sure most/all of the marketing will push the fully installed with equipment £150 deal, but I still think it entirely likely that you'll be able to ring them up, tell them you allready have a Sky box, and just be sent a card for the service for a set fee which is nowhere near £150.
NG
Almost my thoughts exactly... This announcement is basically a return to a Solus-style card operation effectively isn't it? (Allowing FTV viewing of ITV, C4 and Five rather than them going FTA and ditching encryption - though this time Sky will be funding it rather than the BBC - who it turned out put most money into the BBC/C4/Five FTV operation...)
The bit that has been missing for a while is the availability of a FTV card - and for a while Sky made it very difficult to get a receiver without subscribing. However for much of the life of Sky Digital this package has been available - certainly since the free receiver offer was introduced a little while after launch (initially you bought a box for £200 and accepted the BiB additional subsidy for phone connection)
This does seem a decision that Sky HAD to take - otherwise the BBC's suggestion of Freesat (where the terrestrial analogue broadcasters moved their digital equivalents to FTA) would have been likely to have been adopted as a driver for coverage in non- DTT areas to allow analogue switch-off to take place.
Sky win by having a potential subscriber in every FTV home - it probably will only need a phone call to move up from FTV to subscription...
The broadcasters kind of win by having a stable receiver platform (and a common interactive standard and EPG) The consumer is limited by Sky badged hardware though - and the lack of a Sky CAM for 3rd party receivers...
noggin
Founding member
cwathen posted:
Hmm, I'm a bit intrigued by this. Are Sky actually developing a new FTA package here, or are they simply more greatly marketing something that allready exists?
From the word go, you were able to have Sky Digital installed without a subscription and just watch the free channels, and IIRC, doing that now costs £150 - exactly what they are saying this service will cost.
And the only channels mentioned are and always have been free anyway, and by 'plus other free channels', do they mean the myriad number of shopping channels which, again, or allready free anyway (and they surely have got to feature quite highly in the '115 TV Channels' that are touted.
Similarly, all but a handful of radio channels are FTA, as are all the interactive services available from the Interactive button.
Until they actually start naming channels and name something which isn't allready there for free, I don't see that they are actually 'launching' a new 'product' at all, they are just trying to more heavily promote a pre-existing service.
And if people who would potentially buy this service are, like most people, just interested in getting the TV and radio channels and couldn't care less about gimmicky interactive service and wouldn't mind not having the Sky Guide, they can get it for a lot less than £150 by buying an FTA Dsat receiver - the other day I think Lidl's was selling them with a dish inside £80 weren't they?
What could seriously get Sky more customers is the launch of a viable low ARPU channel package. Whilst they do have basic packages available for more modest prices, they either offer extremely poor value for money (such as the 'starter' pack, for which you are paying a £10.99/month subscription just to get Sky One and Home&Leisure - all the other channels they list as coming with the package are FTA!) or else they don't offer a comprehensive enough channel choice (there are the 'kids pack', 'music pack', 'entertainment pack' etc packages - yet almost everyone will find there is at least one channel they really want which isn't in their ideal package - i.e. rather ludicriously, UK Gold and Granada Plus - both musts for anyone interested in classic TV, do not appear in the same package under this system).
With Sky, you really have to go all the way up the family package in order to get a decent selection of channels on Sky. Admittedly you do get a hell of a lot of channels (basically every channel there is except for premium channels), but by the same token it does cost £19.50/month and rises above inflation every year - it wasn't that long ago that it was only £12.99.
I realise of course, that Sky doesn't want it's cheaper packages to appear particularly attractive, but instead view the family package as being the absolute minimum they are happy with a subcriber having, and will try their hardest to upsell them on that, since Sky are now targetting mid/high ARPU subscribers. But taking that approach, especially with the price of the family pack ever more going through the roof, they are making themselves unattractive for people with more modest budgets.
Since they are developing a proper service to mirror Freeview (if indeed that is what they are doing), then imo this is an excellent opportunity for them to mirror the DTT condition and create a low ARPU subscription option, similar to that provided by Top Up TV, too.
They could pull together the same channel choice as Top Up offers, with Sky One aswell (and of course with all channels available for their full transmission hours, possibly even with the +1's where applicable) to replace the present 'basic' channel package, but sold at the same price of £10.99. That won't instantly result in everyone ditching their family pack subscriptions and downgrading to basic, because (assuming it really was Top Up TV channels all day + Sky One) it would still be missing a lot of the choice available with the higher level packages - i.e. the main killer kids channel, Nickelodeon, wouldn't be there, nor would any of the (subscription) music channels either, nor the extended channel family of Discovery, etc.
Whilst Sky of course does hold it's subcriber base pretty well, the next price hike for the family pack, which will send it over the £20 barrier I feel will make it appear too inaccessible for new customers. On the one hand, suddenly £20+ / month for pay TV seems a lot, on the other, for most people the more basic packages just aren't worth looking at. Result, they just won't get Sky.
Seeing how Top Up TV is apparantly doing quite well with the somewhat akward operating conditions they have, the opportunity for Sky to seriously get back into low ARPU I think should be investigated - and this seems a natural time to do it. After all, they provide mid and high ARPU serivces, they are are going to provide a no ARPU service, they might aswell look into providing a serious, viable, low ARPU service too. That way, there would be a Sky product for every multi channel TV user, from those who pay extortionate monthly subscriptions that, frankly, I wouldn't pay if I had the money, right down to those who pay nothing.
From the word go, you were able to have Sky Digital installed without a subscription and just watch the free channels, and IIRC, doing that now costs £150 - exactly what they are saying this service will cost.
And the only channels mentioned are and always have been free anyway, and by 'plus other free channels', do they mean the myriad number of shopping channels which, again, or allready free anyway (and they surely have got to feature quite highly in the '115 TV Channels' that are touted.
Similarly, all but a handful of radio channels are FTA, as are all the interactive services available from the Interactive button.
Until they actually start naming channels and name something which isn't allready there for free, I don't see that they are actually 'launching' a new 'product' at all, they are just trying to more heavily promote a pre-existing service.
And if people who would potentially buy this service are, like most people, just interested in getting the TV and radio channels and couldn't care less about gimmicky interactive service and wouldn't mind not having the Sky Guide, they can get it for a lot less than £150 by buying an FTA Dsat receiver - the other day I think Lidl's was selling them with a dish inside £80 weren't they?
What could seriously get Sky more customers is the launch of a viable low ARPU channel package. Whilst they do have basic packages available for more modest prices, they either offer extremely poor value for money (such as the 'starter' pack, for which you are paying a £10.99/month subscription just to get Sky One and Home&Leisure - all the other channels they list as coming with the package are FTA!) or else they don't offer a comprehensive enough channel choice (there are the 'kids pack', 'music pack', 'entertainment pack' etc packages - yet almost everyone will find there is at least one channel they really want which isn't in their ideal package - i.e. rather ludicriously, UK Gold and Granada Plus - both musts for anyone interested in classic TV, do not appear in the same package under this system).
With Sky, you really have to go all the way up the family package in order to get a decent selection of channels on Sky. Admittedly you do get a hell of a lot of channels (basically every channel there is except for premium channels), but by the same token it does cost £19.50/month and rises above inflation every year - it wasn't that long ago that it was only £12.99.
I realise of course, that Sky doesn't want it's cheaper packages to appear particularly attractive, but instead view the family package as being the absolute minimum they are happy with a subcriber having, and will try their hardest to upsell them on that, since Sky are now targetting mid/high ARPU subscribers. But taking that approach, especially with the price of the family pack ever more going through the roof, they are making themselves unattractive for people with more modest budgets.
Since they are developing a proper service to mirror Freeview (if indeed that is what they are doing), then imo this is an excellent opportunity for them to mirror the DTT condition and create a low ARPU subscription option, similar to that provided by Top Up TV, too.
They could pull together the same channel choice as Top Up offers, with Sky One aswell (and of course with all channels available for their full transmission hours, possibly even with the +1's where applicable) to replace the present 'basic' channel package, but sold at the same price of £10.99. That won't instantly result in everyone ditching their family pack subscriptions and downgrading to basic, because (assuming it really was Top Up TV channels all day + Sky One) it would still be missing a lot of the choice available with the higher level packages - i.e. the main killer kids channel, Nickelodeon, wouldn't be there, nor would any of the (subscription) music channels either, nor the extended channel family of Discovery, etc.
Whilst Sky of course does hold it's subcriber base pretty well, the next price hike for the family pack, which will send it over the £20 barrier I feel will make it appear too inaccessible for new customers. On the one hand, suddenly £20+ / month for pay TV seems a lot, on the other, for most people the more basic packages just aren't worth looking at. Result, they just won't get Sky.
Seeing how Top Up TV is apparantly doing quite well with the somewhat akward operating conditions they have, the opportunity for Sky to seriously get back into low ARPU I think should be investigated - and this seems a natural time to do it. After all, they provide mid and high ARPU serivces, they are are going to provide a no ARPU service, they might aswell look into providing a serious, viable, low ARPU service too. That way, there would be a Sky product for every multi channel TV user, from those who pay extortionate monthly subscriptions that, frankly, I wouldn't pay if I had the money, right down to those who pay nothing.
Almost my thoughts exactly... This announcement is basically a return to a Solus-style card operation effectively isn't it? (Allowing FTV viewing of ITV, C4 and Five rather than them going FTA and ditching encryption - though this time Sky will be funding it rather than the BBC - who it turned out put most money into the BBC/C4/Five FTV operation...)
The bit that has been missing for a while is the availability of a FTV card - and for a while Sky made it very difficult to get a receiver without subscribing. However for much of the life of Sky Digital this package has been available - certainly since the free receiver offer was introduced a little while after launch (initially you bought a box for £200 and accepted the BiB additional subsidy for phone connection)
This does seem a decision that Sky HAD to take - otherwise the BBC's suggestion of Freesat (where the terrestrial analogue broadcasters moved their digital equivalents to FTA) would have been likely to have been adopted as a driver for coverage in non- DTT areas to allow analogue switch-off to take place.
Sky win by having a potential subscriber in every FTV home - it probably will only need a phone call to move up from FTV to subscription...
The broadcasters kind of win by having a stable receiver platform (and a common interactive standard and EPG) The consumer is limited by Sky badged hardware though - and the lack of a Sky CAM for 3rd party receivers...