Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="2old4this" data-source="post: 3004" data-attributes="member: 174998">In many other countries, anyone subscribing to satellite has to pay for the equipment. If Sky abandonded the (almost) free equipment &amp; installation for subscribers, then they could no doubt bring down the subscription costs. After all, it costs them the same to transmit whether one person or 10 million are watching. The only other incremental costs they have for new subscribers are for the card and perhaps some telephone support - though even that can be made self-financing by making the helpline a premium-rate pay line (as Canal+ does).On the other hand, while people in the UK apparently don't seem to mind forking out a small fortune in monthly costs, they don't like (or are unable) to pay a lump sum up front - so not giving away the boxes/dishes/etc would probably spell disaster as well.The astonishing thing is that while people moan about what they perceive as high subscription fees, an awful lot do buy the top (most expensive) packages, and also pay what truly are ridiculous fees for PPV events &amp; films. Oh, and for all that interactive chaff (games/etc.). The AVERAGE Sky customer spend is approaching GBP 350 per annum. This is almost twice as much as the basic &quot;family package&quot; (already encompassing more than a hundred channels) costs.Perhaps it's not the subscription fees per se that are the problem, but rather the addiction people have to their boxes...2old</blockquote>

[QUOTE="2old4this, post: 3004, member: 174998"] In many other countries, anyone subscribing to satellite has to pay for the equipment. If Sky abandonded the (almost) free equipment & installation for subscribers, then they could no doubt bring down the subscription costs. After all, it costs them the same to transmit whether one person or 10 million are watching. The only other incremental costs they have for new subscribers are for the card and perhaps some telephone support - though even that can be made self-financing by making the helpline a premium-rate pay line (as Canal+ does). On the other hand, while people in the UK apparently don't seem to mind forking out a small fortune in monthly costs, they don't like (or are unable) to pay a lump sum up front - so not giving away the boxes/dishes/etc would probably spell disaster as well. The astonishing thing is that while people moan about what they perceive as high subscription fees, an awful lot do buy the top (most expensive) packages, and also pay what truly are ridiculous fees for PPV events & films. Oh, and for all that interactive chaff (games/etc.). The AVERAGE Sky customer spend is approaching GBP 350 per annum. This is almost twice as much as the basic "family package" (already encompassing more than a hundred channels) costs. Perhaps it's not the subscription fees per se that are the problem, but rather the addiction people have to their boxes... 2old [/QUOTE]

Verification