Sky Multiroom Charges - Fair?

[pebrey]

Hi,

 

First post on this site, but have just got off the phone to Sky.

 

Heres the deal, we have the top package with them, along with the top broadband package. I want to get an additional 3 multiroom cards - one each for two bedrooms and one for a second box in the lounge (Explained later). The kit is already all in place, so I dont need any dishes, sky boxes etc. The additional boxes currently have freesat cards in them.

 

Sky want to charge an additional £10 per room monthly subscription, along with a £10 per card connection fee. This puts the monthly subscription up to in excess of £70!!

 

Reasons for the addition cards are simple - 2 x bedrooms (I actually have 4, but only need / want sky in 2). Second box in the lounge is as we use media center for TV. In order to record 1 channel and watch another, you need 2 inputs. ergo - 2 boxes.

 

My points are:

 

1) Sky advertise "Multiroom". This surely gives the impression of a single additional service to watch in multiple rooms, not an additional service per room. (Which surely would be called "Sky additional room")

 

2) The functionalilty I want for the lounge (record one channel, watch another) is already available in the form of sky plus, which, as of the end of June will be free. The functionality offered by the media center is far superior (in my opinion) to that of sky plus, but sky will not allow people to build their services into it.

 

3) No other TV service that I am aware of charges you for the privilage of watching TV in more than one room.

 

Point 1 and 3 I think are fairly self explainatory but do seem wrong to me. However, point 2 has got me going a little. Surely the failure to allow other equipment to be used is anti-competitive? It reminds me of the recent itunes case where apple were nearly instructed to open itunes so that downloaded music will play on any MP3 player, not just the ipod. They only got away with it on a DRM technicallty as far as I am aware. In terms of Sky, they cannot argue this as they control any DRM (in terms of available channels) via their card.

Also, in requiring a second box and hence an additional multiroom subscription for my lounge, surely they could be considered to be penalising me by attempting to charge me for a service which would be free were I to use their inferior kit?

 

Bit of a rant I know, but would be interested to know if anyone else agrees with me (Or thinks I should just shut up!!!).........

[gyzmo]

I can't help but think that Sky are offering a service, as they are entitled to do so. For this service they are charging a certain amount. You are free to have this service or not. If you want it, you have to pay for it.

 

I think there is a difference here as to whether something is unfair or simply expensive. You mention that the service referred to in point 2 will be free by the end of June. Can you not simply accept this service at that time and not pay for it?

 

It's incidental that I received a mailshot from Sky today. The document advised quite clearly of all the services they provide and the charges for them. I cannot say that they are good value, nor can I say that they are unfair.

[StormWarrior]

(Or thinks I should just shut up!!!).........

 

Oh the temptation !!!!

 

Just kidding.

I don't have TV at all, so I don't really care, but points 1 & 2...

 

Imagine small block of 6 flats, one account and 5 extra free access cards.

In theory you could even run a cable next door in a normal house, and while we're at it, a network cable to share the broadband.

Cheaper and cheaper it gets.

 

Point 3, Ntl, or Virgin as they are now, charge for extra boxes. Probably partly for the same reason.

 

I guess they all want to try and keep some form of control and income. But I'm only guessing

[pebrey]

I understand what both of you are saying. Also I appreciate it is very hard to control in terms of where the multi-room cards end up.

 

That said, in this day and age, should anyone be paying £70 plus a month for a tv?

 

TV License is expensive enough. I think twice at spending £1000 plus on a nice big flat screen, but over the year I could easily pay for one on the money I am paying sky (Maybe they should give me one free with my subsciption).

 

The other problem I have is that I am unfortunate enough to live in an area where terrestrial is not an option. The analogue transmission is weak (Doesnt work when raining) and no digital signal at all, (until 2012ish according to the website). This means we are tied to sky and effectively means they can charge what they want.

 

I should also point out that the multi-room services (I believe at least) are only activated if all of the boxes are plugged into the same phone line. I guess this is a way that Sky prevent people from using the same subscription in different places.

 

Running phone lines all round the house to accomodate this is going to be a pain, one that I am prepared to accept, but not when I have to pay £70 per month for the privilage....

[StormWarrior]

should anyone be paying £70 plus a month for a tv

No, most certainly not! Because there is rarely anything on TV really worth watching at all. Hence I don't!

 

Having said that,

Sky are a business, and like most suppliers they provide a service for a price, yes that service might be crap, yes the price might be high, but thats what they offer for the price they ask.

You as a consumer have a choice, pick the services that suppliers are offering you and pay the rate that they want, or decide that the service is not worth the price and don't deal with the supplier.

 

Easy really!

 

Or are you suggesting that you have a 'right' to the services being offered? You'd expect to pay for a new lotus, why not for entertainment?

 

Sorry if I sound 'off', but too many people want everything for nothing, and/or seem to believe that they have a right to receive everything for little or nothing.

 

p.s. Even though I do not need one ( no TV) I do believe that the TV licence should be abolished.

[patdavies]

I should also point out that the multi-room services (I believe at least) are only activated if all of the boxes are plugged into the same phone line. I guess this is a way that Sky prevent people from using the same subscription in different places.

 

This is not so. Each box must be connected to a phone line for the first 12 months at least - it does not have to be the same phone line.

 

When we had Sky, we had two boxes connected to separate phone lines.

[IdaInFife]

This is not so. Each box must be connected to a phone line for the first 12 months at least - it does not have to be the same phone line.

 

When we had Sky, we had two boxes connected to separate phone lines.

 

i am afraid it does have to be the same line/number as it shows up. There is no connection fee but for every card after your main subs will cost £10 per month as long as all boxes are connected to the SAME line or you will be charged £43.50 (assuming top package) for each box that shows that sky are not getting satifactory callbacks from)

 

It's a case of these are the charge and if you don't want to pay them then don;t aske for them . Also bear in mind it's another 12 month minimum subscription for all boxes.

 

You can have sky in other rooms without multiroom charge but you can only watch what is being showm on the box tv.

 

Idax

[Guest ArthurP]

 

That said, in this day and age, should anyone be paying £70 plus a month for a tv?

 

TV License is expensive enough. I think twice at spending £1000 plus on a nice big flat screen, but over the year I could easily pay for one on the money I am paying sky (Maybe they should give me one free with my subsciption).

 

Sorry mate but it just sounds like the problem I encountered when I thought of having Sky.

 

Sky is just an expensive luxury so I didn't get it. Why not try that train of thought?

 

:-?

[CAGisforME]

I don't really understand what the problem is.

 

Skyplus (full package) plus multi-room costs me around £53 per month. We have the multi-room box wired to a tv in another room so Sky can be viewed in there too, but obviously the same channel as the other room.

 

Using this system we can record & watch different channels whenever we want.

 

Skyplus allows programmes to be saved and then copied to DVDR or Video and so we can still have plenty of space on the skyplus to accomodate everyone in the house. It's very convenient. That's why we are happy to pay the money every month.

 

It costs £53 because that's what Sky charge and what we agreed to pay for this service. They didn't force us to take this. Any more than they are forcing you.

 

Echoing other posters I don't really understand what you want Sky to do? Why should they reduce YOUR subscription if not everyone elses?

 

I've had my problems with Skyplus and Sky themselves (see my sig) but I can't complain about the cost, as it's my choice to pay it. Just the same as it's yours.

 

If you don't want to pay £70 odd per month, find another supplier who will give you the same channels and service as Sky for less. (Although I doubt you will find one)

 

[IdaInFife]

I think cag says it all

[Rich44]

Oh the temptation !!!!

 

Just kidding.

I don't have TV at all, so I don't really care, but points 1 & 2...

 

Imagine small block of 6 flats, one account and 5 extra free access cards.

In theory you could even run a cable next door in a normal house, and while we're at it, a network cable to share the broadband.

Cheaper and cheaper it gets.

 

Point 3, Ntl, or Virgin as they are now, charge for extra boxes. Probably partly for the same reason.

 

I guess they all want to try and keep some form of control and income. But I'm only guessing

 

Thats why you HAVE to keep the boxes plugged into the phone line if the box calls home and the number doesnt match it locks you out and if its not plugged in at all then you are in breach of their terms and they warn you then cut you off, unlike the media subsidy for install and supply they DO warn and they DO cut you off

[rogerebaker]

I think sky TV is excellent value for money. I pay about 50.00 a month for Sky+ and multiroom.

 

you could of course for the same price ----

 

watch half a chelsea match

 

Sit on your own at a west end show

 

A meal for two at a very ordinary restaurant

 

unlimited multiroom is not yet available but perhaps in the future !!

[jampot]

I have a SkyHD box downstairs, wired to an amp in the loft. The amp distributes back down to my study, kitchen and master bedroom. This is my own "multiroom" system, meaning I can watch the same output in 4 different places.

 

In addition, I have a multiroom box in the attic (put there when I upgraded to SkyHD) which costs an extra £10 a month. This is wired into a different amp, and into bedroom 2 and the garden (don't ask) - plus it is also wired into a Slingbox (which then plugs into my broadband router).

 

The result is, I can watch (using laptop or PC) the output of the multiroom box from anywhere in the house (as well as any internet connection outside of the house) and can watch the output of the HD box in 4 seperate rooms.

 

Covers all of my bases, and means I don't end up with an inordinate number of multiroom boxes / cards.

 

Sky do get shirty of the multiroom box isn't plugged into the same phone line - whereas in the first 12 months you have to have your box connected, the multiroom connection (to phone) needs to be FOR THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT, as it is the only way they can ensure it is being used in your house...

 

I would consider freesat if the signal doesn't allow freeview, unless there's a need to watch (say) 4 different Sky channels in the same house at the same time. The Slingbox / Slingplayer is also an excellent way to watch TV. I can even install Slingplayer software on my mobile phone and watch on the move.

[PKea]

Thats why you HAVE to keep the boxes plugged into the phone line if the box calls home and the number doesnt match it locks you out and if its not plugged in at all then you are in breach of their terms and they warn you then cut you off, unlike the media subsidy for install and supply they DO warn and they DO cut you off

 

Do to a dispute with BT we have had no telephone line in our house for approx 4 months.

Sky haven't said anything to us or warned us or cut us off.

 

Paul

[wycombemariner]

I took Sky to court last year and lost heavily. It was all to do with charging me twice as i had two boxes in two different rooms. I ended up with a refund, but lost the case itself. I got the refund as a goodwill gesture from sky.

 

My advice - buy yourself a few "Magic Eyes" from Ebay @ £2 each, then use them in each of the rooms, you wouldn't even need the boxes then, and could probably make a small profit by selling the unwanted sky boxes on ebay.

[wycombemariner]

Do to a dispute with BT we have had no telephone line in our house for approx 4 months.

Sky haven't said anything to us or warned us or cut us off.

 

Paul

 

 

they will do soon believe me - thats why i ended up in court with them, as i refused to plug the 2nd box into the phone line, and then refused to pay a full subscription for EACH box that I had.

[ncf355]

they will do soon believe me - thats why i ended up in court with them, as i refused to plug the 2nd box into the phone line, and then refused to pay a full subscription for EACH box that I had.

 

I'd agree, they wrote to me as there was a problem with one of multi room connecting on the wrong number - turned out to be a prob with the engineer set up, but they sent a few letters before I actually tore myself away from CAG long enough to edit the settings

 

I wouldnt agree that Sky offers good value, but certainly in my area this is due to lack of competition, no cable available so its Sky or Freeview and Freeview is *cough* so easy choice (at least while I can afford it!)

[Guest ArthurP]

I think sky TV is excellent value for money. I pay about 50.00 a month for Sky+ and multiroom.

 

you could of course for the same price ----

 

watch half a chelsea match

 

Sit on your own at a west end show

 

A meal for two at a very ordinary restaurant

 

unlimited multiroom is not yet available but perhaps in the future !!

 

I can't agree for several reasons.

 

For £50 a month I pay my gas, electric and most of my water bill.

 

Or it is almost four times the cost of my car insurance per year.

 

Plus I hear Sky customers have to pay on top if they want to watch a footy match or big fight boxing. A friend said he paid £8 to watch a 1st division game on Sky when he could have gone to the game itself for £2 more!

 

I actually can think of nothing worse than watching endless TV anyway.

 

It's a rip off.

[Rich44]

Do to a dispute with BT we have had no telephone line in our house for approx 4 months.

Sky haven't said anything to us or warned us or cut us off.

 

Paul

 

Well maybe youve slipped thru the crack or whatever but as a general rule they do cut people off etc for no phone line I dont know why they havent in your case but they could do at anytime as several people on this thread have pointed out.

 

On a seperate note we pay for 2 mixes and £10 per month for Sky+ making £25 we got a letter the other day saying they are dropping the £10 per month Sky+ fee from the end of this month so thats our sub almost halved in one go without changing packages

 

TBH I may just skip it entirely get 2 freesat cards and use a media center PC to watch different channels black gold have a quad tuner DVB-S card out soon so that would solve the problem record 3 channels and watch one lovely all for free

[rogerebaker]

I can't agree for several reasons.

 

For £50 a month I pay my gas, electric and most of my water bill.

 

Or it is almost four times the cost of my car insurance per year.

 

Plus I hear Sky customers have to pay on top if they want to watch a footy match or big fight boxing. A friend said he paid £8 to watch a 1st division game on Sky when he could have gone to the game itself for £2 more!

 

I actually can think of nothing worse than watching endless TV anyway.

 

It's a rip off.

 

I think youve probably got to be a bit of a football addict like myself to appreciate it

[IdaInFife]

I think with things like sky is that it's up to you if want to pay those prices or not or if you feel it's good value or not.

 

It's really a case of if you want it you have to pay their charges and agree to their t&c's

 

 

Idax

[gyzmo]

As said, it comes down to what something is worth and whether something is fair. The two are different. Personally, I begrudge paying Virgin the £20 (I got a discount) for my TV, broadband and basic TV package. I never use the phone (my choice), the TV channels offerd are basically what you get with freeview, but the broadband is well worth it (I can't get more than 1 meg anyway) - I would have to pay £11 BT line plus the service charge for any other provider, which would be moer than £20. Cheap? Yes. Value? well.....

[rogerebaker]

I took Sky to court last year and lost heavily. It was all to do with charging me twice as i had two boxes in two different rooms. I ended up with a refund, but lost the case itself. I got the refund as a goodwill gesture from sky.

 

My advice - buy yourself a few "Magic Eyes" from Ebay @ £2 each, then use them in each of the rooms, you wouldn't even need the boxes then, and could probably make a small profit by selling the unwanted sky boxes on ebay.

 

ordered my magic eye today. a few small drill holes and I will be watching sky all over the house by the weekend

 

thanks for the advice

[gyzmo]

erm, forgive my nieveness (and I say this jokingly), but are you drilling holes in your walls to watch your neighbours' TV when it is on Sky?

 

Seriously, what are these magic eye thingies? And are they only for Sky or can they be used for Virgin / NTL whoever the hel they are?

 

And are they legal?????

[sea-sidelady]

Yes they are legal. And cheap on auction sites..

 

We have them in a few rooms. But you should get the better wire. Co-ax cable i think its called. (im sure some one will correct me on that!!) For a better quality picture.