@Legow wrote:
A lot of comments on this trying to justify the perspective of the company and share holders.
I'd suggest almost all such posts are explanation rather than justification. 'company and share holders' are somewhat significant factors: that's generally how capitalism works.
As a customer and someone who pays for a service, the service should be delivered as expected as it always was, without adverts.
'Services' change: surely you've noticed that elsewhere?
They have basically reduced the level of service that customers pay for in order to generate more profits. That's wrong, I don't see any justifiable argument for it.
Comcast stockholders (who have just seen an $8 billion write-down of the acquisition price) might disagree. Again, capitalism.
I'd assume you're referring to the roll-out of adverts to Sky on-demand services rather than the initial topic of this thread which was the temporary suspension of advertising by some commercial channels after the death of the Queen. I think no forum posters are likely to argue Sky has increased subscriber exposure to advertisments in a particularly clever way, but it's their business and they can choose to do so.
* * * * * * *
Sky Glass 55" (on ethernet) & two Stream Pucks (one ethernet / one WiFi)
BT Halo 3+ Ultrafast FTTP (500Mbs), BT Smart Hub 2
