Send a message. We will leave Sky, if they don't give us our programmes we are paying for back.

[NatAnne16]

I am sure many other Sky customers have noticed that more and more, of the good shows i.e Grey's Anatomy, Station 19, 911, including lonestar etc etc etc  to name just a few, are no longer available to us. Unless of course, we sign up to yet another service. Day by day more and more are going, but why should we pay extra, to continue watching them, because Sky are no longer bothered about content. I have no wish to watch true crime programmes on loads of channels, not just Sky Crime if I choose to. Why should they pay to have the good shows, when they think us mugs will just put up and keep paying them their exhorbitant fee. Well personally, I have had enough [content removed] Either bid and win the most popular shows or give us, free access to Disney+ etc. After all we are paying you for an enterainment package, so we want the content. It's bad enough that we have to put up with BT's dreadful internet speed, in my case 45 year old copper cables which give a few megabits. Instead of the 200+ my neighbour gets, with the new fibre optic cables the council installed and for less money, I might add. 

[content removed]

Moderator note: content removed

[Grilly]

It is hardly Sky's fault that some of those shows have gone to another provider..

[GD1]

@NatAnne16  Sky cannot give free access to 3rd party providers.  Disney+ is not owned by Sky, you may find this surprising but actually owned by......Disney!

You complain about shows made by other providers being lost by Sky to other platforms and expect Sky to bid higher for these shows but you complain about already paying too much, if they bid higher, prices would go up further.

The Pay TV market is changing due to 3rd party providers offering streaming services Sky cannot stop this from happening

If you feel it's not value for money then cancel, no one is forced to subscribe.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@NatAnne16 wrote:

 Either bid and win the most popular shows or give us, free access to Disney+ etc. 

---

Given you think it's already too expensive, by how much would you like your Sky subscription to increase so that they can attempt to outbid the global streaming giants which aren't even trying to break-even financially at the current time?

[TimmyBGood]

---

@NatAnne16 wrote:

 It's bad enough that we have to put up with BT's dreadful internet speed, in my case 45 year old copper cables which give a few megabits. 

---

The Openreach national rollout of FTTP is past ten million properties, but inevitably takes time.  If a local authority chooses to invest in private fibre (probably with borrowed capital they are now regretting) that's up to them.

[RobertS83]

If you dont like the sky content why dont you just cancel your sky and sign up to Disney+ if these are the only tv shows you are watching. If you miss the sky branded channels join Now TV. Simples..

The reason I have sky is the simplicty of having all of the channels together as IP channels, in the TV guide, and lucky I can afford to buy Disney+ and use the app through my sky stream.

There is going to be an ad version of Disney+ from November 1st in UK for £5 a month, similar to Netflix's ad tier. 

[nolte]

It is up to each individual to consider where in their case, the current sky offering is value for money.

In your case, you do not feel so.

Then the option is clear, either renegotiate with sky to try to get a lower p(you won't get disney plus free. Sorry) or leave.

[SlenderRobert]

I agree - the value of Sky's service is entirely dependent on the individual . If you don't think it's worth it, don't pay for it. 

It's becoming much easier now to live without Sky. Gone are the days where their satellite PVR's were ground-breaking and essential. Aside from sports, pretty much everything they show is now available by other means, often cheaper and in better quality. 

My Stream puck sits idle for days on end now as everyone in the family prefers using other devices because they're quicker, easier and more reliable. 

Other people still like the familiarity of Sky's comfortable blue user interface, an EPG and the barrage of pretty thumbnails on screen, telling you what to watch. And that's fine. If that's what you like and you're happy to pay for it then continue to do so. But more and more alternative options are available, and Sky are no longer streets ahead of the competition. 

[Skull+Treaty]

---

@GD1 wrote:

@NatAnne16  Sky cannot give free access to 3rd party providers.  Disney+ is not owned by Sky, you may find this surprising but actually owned by......Disney!

---

Unless you have Sky Cinema, then you get Paramount+ included;  not forgetting Discovery+ is also available at no charge 👍🏻

[Diddums]

It's an interesting situation when programmes leave and the impact on cost. Always with the consumer.

I recall when Sky's rights to the Champions League ended and I foolishly thought that prices would drop seeing as Sky weren't paying the millions for the rights anymore.

That didnt happen but what did was an expected additional sub to BT for the privilege of something I had previously with Sky.

Bottom line, buy into what you want but don't be surprised if more and more is segregated out to multiple subscription services.

If this does happen though, Sky prices should realistically drop to cater for the lack of providing previous content given consumers have to fork out elsewhere for it, otherwise we're all just being taken for a ride.

[nolte]

---

@Diddums wrote:

It's an interesting situation when programmes leave and the impact on cost. Always with the consumer.

I recall when Sky's rights to the Champions League ended and I foolishly thought that prices would drop seeing as Sky weren't paying the millions for the rights anymore.

The counter would be that if you cut prices because of losing rights and apply these cuts, then those who never watched them would benefit.

I never watched champions league, why should I benefit from price cut because of loss of those rights?

I never watched greys anatomy, 911, station 19, why should I benefit from price cut because of losing those?

[Diddums]

I suppose if you're paying for a sports sub which clearly advertises Champions League as one of its flagship acquirements to draw customers in, then doesn't provide it next season, I think sports sub customers in fairness should expect a reduction to the sports subscription due to a major sports event being pulled. Lets face it, the cost would have been huge so did  Sky profit from the substantial savings of not winning the bid? Subs didn't go down to my knowledge.

[Annie+UK]

---

@Diddums wrote:

I suppose if you're paying for a sports sub which clearly advertises Champions League as one of its flagship acquirements to draw customers in, then doesn't provide it next season, I think sports sub customers in fairness should expect a reduction to the sports subscription due to a major sports event being pulled. Lets face it, the cost would have been huge so did  Sky profit from the substantial savings of not winning the bid? Subs didn't go down to my knowledge.

---

No, it's up to the customer to re-evaluate the value they are getting from the subscription/service and cancel if they are not happy afterwards.

People should be doing this with any service they subscribe to

[Diddums]

Agree on your last point but that doesn't detract that overpricing occurrs if Sky costs go down for products not supplied to customers (substantial ones like CL) and that isn't passed on I.e. no reduction to the customer off the back of loss of a major sporting service which was heavily plugged (whereby forcing customer to consume from elsewhere at additional cost).

[Annie+UK]

The cost may go down but so does their income from advertising so the cost decrease is less than you think