4 ms·
Both is useless and expensive (over 240€/year for both).
by IloveHN84 7y ago
Both is useless and expensive (over 240€/year for both).
- askafriend 7y agoFor a household of 4, that's really cheap for a year of entertainment!
- tiernano 7y agoI'm paying 70+ per month to sky alone. 240 a year is peanuts!
- 72deluxe 7y agoOut of interest, did you not consider this expensive when you started paying that amount? I used to work with people who thought it was a "good deal" to be paying £110 a month to Sky for their phone, broadband and TV. I couldn't work out why. It's a lot of money. Mind you, they might have been watching TV all day long - nothing better to do, I suppose.
- Jaruzel 7y agoFor a lot of long term Sky subscribers (myself included) that £70 per month is a result of many years of small price hikes. It's easy to say 'just ditch Sky', but when the hard disk inside your sky receiver is full of downloaded/recorded content that isn't available for free anywhere else (so you'd have to pay for it again), it's hard to actually break away from the service. For those that aren't aware, the content that is stored on your Sky receiver is encrypted to the boxes serial number AND your viewing card. According to Sky, it's impossible to copy the content to another box (even as part of a Sky Q upgrade), let alone extract it for viewing on another platform. Sky use this tactic to lock the customers in.
- mprev 7y agoRing Sky, tell them you're leaving. They'll give you an offer. If you don't like it, go through with leaving. They'll make you serve a 30 day notice period. Before that ends you'll get a better offer. If you don't like that offer, actually leave. They'll send you an even better offer. There's no need to pay full price for Sky once you're out of your first year's contract.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago£110/month to watch adverts? No thanks.