Can somebody explain this? (SKY)

[Colonel Decker]

Being a reasonably avid football fan I have subscribed to the benevolent Mr Murdoch's Sky Sports for many years, enabling me to watch all televised Premier League games.

With the advent of Setanta/ESPN and the decision of the monopolies commission that not all games can be shown on one channel I have been forced to spend an extra tenner a month for the same thing.

How the hell is this good for the consumer?

The reason this is pertinent is that tomorrow I want to watch Villa v Chelsea and reminisce over Houllier and long balls to big Emile.

[Will]

Being a reasonably avid football fan I have subscribed to the benevolent Mr Murdoch's Sky Sports for many years, enabling me to watch all televised Premier League games.

With the advent of Setanta/ESPN and the decision of the monopolies commission that not all games can be shown on one channel I have been forced to spend an extra tenner a month for the same thing.

How the hell is this good for the consumer?

The reason this is pertinent is that tomorrow I want to watch Villa v Chelsea and reminisce over Houllier and long balls to big Emile.

You havn't. Also if you subscribe to Sky Sports you will only pay £9 a mth for ESPN. You can fone Sky and cancel the subscription you have with ESPN and it will go off a month from the day you canceled.

[Craig_H]

The point he is making, is that when Sky had exclusive PL rights, you only had to subscribe to Sky Sports and you'd get all live PL games.

Then the MMC decided that it'd make it 'better' for fans - and yet, their action meant that fans could no longer watch all live PL games by just having Sky Sports - they have to get ESPN now as well, which means their overall subscription costs for watching ALL live PL games, is increased.

This does not remotely benefit the fan/viewer.

[Colonel Decker]

The point he is making, is that when Sky had exclusive PL rights, you only had to subscribe to Sky Sports and you'd get all live PL games.

Then the MMC decided that it'd make it 'better' for fans - and yet, their action meant that fans could no longer watch all live PL games by just having Sky Sports - they have to get ESPN now as well, which means their overall subscription costs for watching ALL live PL games, is increased.

This does not remotely benefit the fan/viewer.

It's like you read my mind!

[Patricks_Berger]

Being a reasonably avid football fan I have subscribed to the benevolent Mr Murdoch's Sky Sports for many years, enabling me to watch all televised Premier League games.

With the advent of Setanta/ESPN and the decision of the monopolies commission that not all games can be shown on one channel I have been forced to spend an extra tenner a month for the same thing.

How the hell is this good for the consumer?

The reason this is pertinent is that tomorrow I want to watch Villa v Chelsea and reminisce over Houllier and long balls to big Emile.

The difference is there are now more live PL games available to watch over the two subscription packages. If you had just stayed with sky you would have continued to receive the same number (or a even a few more) of games for your money. Buy getting Setanta/ESPN you pay more but overall there are more games to watch- which is great if 90 mins of Bolton v Birmingham floats your boat.

Personally it annoys me that I have to pay for a load of ****e games that I don't want to watch when I'd rather pay Liverpool to watch ALL of their games.

[IN_RAFA_WE_TRUST]

Old Murdoch only owns 40% ,is that correct?

[Rich]

Old Murdoch only owns 40% ,is that correct?

Of the world? Pretty much.

[magicalbarnes]

On a seperate note im just wondering how much do you lot all pay?

With Virgin I pay £85 p/month which gives me all the sports channels (inc ESPN), the XL package (every other channel apart from movies), the asian package, 2nd box in bedroom, unlimited anytime phone calls & 20MB broadband.

I always seem to think im paying too much though!

[Craig_H]

On a seperate note im just wondering how much do you lot all pay?

With Virgin I pay £85 p/month which gives me all the sports channels (inc ESPN), the XL package (every other channel apart from movies), the asian package, 2nd box in bedroom, unlimited anytime phone calls & 20MB broadband.

I always seem to think im paying too much though!

Mine is £75 p/m i think, and i've got more or less same as you, but not an extra box.

TV XL, all sky sports & ESPN, 20mb broadband and medium size phone deal.

[magicalbarnes]

Mine is £75 p/m i think, and i've got more or less same as you, but not an extra box.

TV XL, all sky sports & ESPN, 20mb broadband and medium size phone deal.

I suppose im not doing too bad then as iv got the XL phone deal, extra box & asian collection (£10)!

[dom9]

Mine is £75 p/m i think, and i've got more or less same as you, but not an extra box.

TV XL, all sky sports & ESPN, 20mb broadband and medium size phone deal.

£65 FTW but basic phone deal (never use it).

[Craig_H]

I'm convinced they're ripping me off, but when i called up they said i was on their best deal and even when i threatened to walk, they basically said 'ok, if you want to cancel, cancel'

[Neil Young]

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that competition legislation, like so much else, is designed to protect the interests of business, not the people.

[dom9]

How do you make that one out Neil?

[Neil Young]

From the facts. In the name of helping consumers by stimulating competition, European legislation has resulted in viewers in this country having to pay £10 more per month to watch the same amount of football as before. Or you can pay the same amount and watch less.

Who benefits? One television company at the expense of another. And some football clubs and the Premier League.

In other words, some businesses gain while the people lose out.