Price rises at Sky Broadband
Monday 17 November 2008 15:49:07 by Andrew Ferguson
While the price changes for Sky Broadband mentioned on SkyUser.co.uk are unofficial, the changes do have a ring of reality to them.
Sky Broadband, if you are in an area which Sky has its LLU network available, has been free for the Base (2GB allowance) product to those with a Sky TV subscription. As of March 2009 it seems this will increase to £5 a month unless you take Sky Talk which will allow it to remain free. The full list of changes is below:
- Base - currently free rising to £5 or free with Sky Talk
- Mid - currently £5 rising to £10 or £5 with Sky Talk
- Max - currently £10 rising to £15 or £10 with Sky Talk
- Connect - £17 (no price increase or requirement for Sky Talk and only available where Sky has no LLU presence.
By getting people to add Sky Talk to their current double play of broadband and satellite TV, Sky will benefit from the amount of chargeable calls people make each month, e.g. calls to mobiles. Additionally if people are in a triple play bundle, breaking out of the bundle becomes harder, though as Sky is only using the Wholesale Line Rental (WLR) and shared LLU products to supply the services, migration of phone or broadband to another provider is simpler than providers using a fully unbundled solution.
Existing Sky Broadband customers will be receiving a 10 month discount of £5/month so they won't see a price rise until 2010. Those signing up after 20th November 2008 will be informed of the future charges, and given the option to take Sky Talk.
Sky recently made a lot of PR noise over the removal of the fair use policy on its Max product, but as always there are cost implications to keeping a network running with enough capacity to avoid undue congestion. Add to this the pressure of increasing costs from a number of areas and it may not just be Sky raising prices, but simply that Sky are the first to twitch.
TalkTalk with its recently announced range of boosts is hoping to increase revenue from customers, and this move by Sky if correct seems to be another provider looking to increase the average revenue per user. Perhaps the broadband party is nearing a close and the reality of price rises will start to take effect, it is likely that these will be softened by wrapping them up as upgrades which tempt enough people to upgrade and avoid across the board price rises. Where providers have traffic management systems running they may squeeze their cheaper products just a little harder to give a subtle hint that if you pay more you will get more speed.
[
Topic: Internet Service Providers |
37 comments |
link to this item ]
Digg this
Add to del.icio.usComments
Posted by
Bolthead about 1 month ago
@Dawn_Falcon - Even with the increase Sky’s BB prices are still very cheap for what you get. If you subscribe to their TV and want broadband you’re not going to get a better deal.
Quote: “Add to this the pressure of increasing costs from a number of areas and it may not just be Sky raising prices, but simply that Sky are the first to twitch.”
Most likely true and other companies will soon follow suit.
@Dawn_Falcon - Even with the increase Sky’s BB prices are still very cheap for what you get. If you subscribe to their TV and want broadband you’re not going to get a better deal.
Quote: “Add to this the pressure of increasing costs from a number of areas and it may not just be Sky raising prices, but simply that Sky are the first to twitch.”
Most likely true and other companies will soon follow suit.
Posted by
herdwick about 1 month ago
presumably losing money on broadband is getting boring and they want to see it pay its way.
presumably losing money on broadband is getting boring and they want to see it pay its way.
Posted by
herdwick about 1 month ago
First *quarter* adjusted operating profit of £182 million included losses attributable to Sky
Broadband and Talk of £34 million (2008: loss of £51 million) and a £10 million loss
from Easynet (2008: loss of £6 million).
First *quarter* adjusted operating profit of £182 million included losses attributable to Sky
Broadband and Talk of £34 million (2008: loss of £51 million) and a £10 million loss
from Easynet (2008: loss of £6 million).
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
quote"presumably losing money on broadband is getting boring and they want to see it pay its way."
Yeah charging from £5 a month is really gonna make them roll in money. This is obviously nothing more than a bright idea to get people to sub to more services from sky than it is about broadband losing money. £15 a month for a truely unlimited service which in terms of basic consumer broadband is also much faster than a BT offering id hardly call it an attempt to maximise profit, ukonline charge £24 quid a month for as near as the same product. CONT...
quote"presumably losing money on broadband is getting boring and they want to see it pay its way."
Yeah charging from £5 a month is really gonna make them roll in money. This is obviously nothing more than a bright idea to get people to sub to more services from sky than it is about broadband losing money. £15 a month for a truely unlimited service which in terms of basic consumer broadband is also much faster than a BT offering id hardly call it an attempt to maximise profit, ukonline charge £24 quid a month for as near as the same product. CONT...
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
Its obvious they hope people wont wanna pay the £5 extra for their broadband and instead sign up to the phone service and make money from that. My advice to people would be pay the £5 extra see you dont end up fully LLU, that way you still have some control if you want to leave them. You are still also getting a bargain for your money, anyone that thinks £5 for broadband is expensive or £15 for a truely unlimited service is unfair or too expensive needs their head looking at.
Its obvious they hope people wont wanna pay the £5 extra for their broadband and instead sign up to the phone service and make money from that. My advice to people would be pay the £5 extra see you dont end up fully LLU, that way you still have some control if you want to leave them. You are still also getting a bargain for your money, anyone that thinks £5 for broadband is expensive or £15 for a truely unlimited service is unfair or too expensive needs their head looking at.
Posted by
CaptainW about 1 month ago
Apparently, you don't pay the increase if you sign up to ANY Sky Talk package - if you make your calls to 01/02/03 numbers (up to 59 minutes and redial) at night/weekends, you can take their Sky Talk Freetime which costs £0 p/month and you don't have to pay the Sky Broadband increase.
Apparently, you don't pay the increase if you sign up to ANY Sky Talk package - if you make your calls to 01/02/03 numbers (up to 59 minutes and redial) at night/weekends, you can take their Sky Talk Freetime which costs £0 p/month and you don't have to pay the Sky Broadband increase.
Posted by
CaptainW about 1 month ago
@CARPETBURN - I agree with you, they are attempting to tie people into bundles that ensure an appropriate return but this isn't intended to increase their bank balance dramatically. Sky reported recently they had 1.792 million Broadband customer's and 1.361 Sky Talk - so there's headroom for 431,000 more Sky Talk customer's as a minimum and they either produce the revenue from extra calls outwith Sky Talk Freetime, or via Sky Talk Unlimited, or via the £5 Broadband increase. Not bank breaking IMO.
@CARPETBURN - I agree with you, they are attempting to tie people into bundles that ensure an appropriate return but this isn't intended to increase their bank balance dramatically. Sky reported recently they had 1.792 million Broadband customer's and 1.361 Sky Talk - so there's headroom for 431,000 more Sky Talk customer's as a minimum and they either produce the revenue from extra calls outwith Sky Talk Freetime, or via Sky Talk Unlimited, or via the £5 Broadband increase. Not bank breaking IMO.
Posted by
jumpmum about 1 month ago
Carpetburn: "Yeah charging from £5 a month is really gonna make them roll in money" 1.8m customers @ £5 per month =£9m / month , £27m / quarter brings it close to breakeven. With extra call charges from those who take SkyTalk maybe a little profit. As aquisition costs are written off from ~12months could even start to make money. CaptainW It's calls to mobiles that are highly profitable, even a few add up to £s per month.
Carpetburn: "Yeah charging from £5 a month is really gonna make them roll in money" 1.8m customers @ £5 per month =£9m / month , £27m / quarter brings it close to breakeven. With extra call charges from those who take SkyTalk maybe a little profit. As aquisition costs are written off from ~12months could even start to make money. CaptainW It's calls to mobiles that are highly profitable, even a few add up to £s per month.
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
its basically them trying to force people onto sky talk so the bundle requirements have increased. Recently I guess sky have lost alot of people on sky talk because 1280 overide is now blocked so people left as it meant they had to start paying BT for caller display.
its basically them trying to force people onto sky talk so the bundle requirements have increased. Recently I guess sky have lost alot of people on sky talk because 1280 overide is now blocked so people left as it meant they had to start paying BT for caller display.
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
I disagree with andrew that is to do with the FUP, the easynet network has spare capacity galore, so temoving the FUP made NO difference to their costs as it was never been enforced anyway, I think this is due to high churn on sky talk.
I disagree with andrew that is to do with the FUP, the easynet network has spare capacity galore, so temoving the FUP made NO difference to their costs as it was never been enforced anyway, I think this is due to high churn on sky talk.
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
to herdwick, sky do not sell broadband as standalone (other than connect), their profits as such have to be counted for their entire product base. Its been explained to you before the broadband is a means for them to reduce tv churn nothing else.
"BSkyB said turnover in the 12 months increased by 11% to £4.05bn while operating profits before exceptional items rose by 34% to £805m, better than the £760m forecast by some analysts in the City"
to herdwick, sky do not sell broadband as standalone (other than connect), their profits as such have to be counted for their entire product base. Its been explained to you before the broadband is a means for them to reduce tv churn nothing else.
"BSkyB said turnover in the 12 months increased by 11% to £4.05bn while operating profits before exceptional items rose by 34% to £805m, better than the £760m forecast by some analysts in the City"
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
captianw you hit the nail on the head.
captianw you hit the nail on the head.
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
Wow for the first time most of us agree its about locking people into sky branded services than it is about broadband profit or broadband not making them enough money... This must be almost a first :D
ME personally id still sooner pay the extra £5 per month and not let them get their mits on my phone service. Providing a reliable working telephone service is one thing BT are still good at. (IMO)
Wow for the first time most of us agree its about locking people into sky branded services than it is about broadband profit or broadband not making them enough money... This must be almost a first :D
ME personally id still sooner pay the extra £5 per month and not let them get their mits on my phone service. Providing a reliable working telephone service is one thing BT are still good at. (IMO)
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
if it was about costs we would be seeing sky adding topup fees to their products and they certianly wouldnt have removed their FUP.
if it was about costs we would be seeing sky adding topup fees to their products and they certianly wouldnt have removed their FUP.
Posted by
Dawn_Falcon about 1 month ago
Haha Carpet, good joke.
Bolthead - They were primarily concerned about the broadband, £5/month more pushes it above other offers they were considering (and which don't make then buy a sky box).
(And no, they're not interested in switching from the phone deal they got several years ago)
Haha Carpet, good joke.
Bolthead - They were primarily concerned about the broadband, £5/month more pushes it above other offers they were considering (and which don't make then buy a sky box).
(And no, they're not interested in switching from the phone deal they got several years ago)
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
quote"if it was about costs we would be seeing sky adding topup fees to their products and they certianly wouldnt have removed their FUP."
I agree if you look back previously sky always whack the prices of their TV services up before anything else if they want more money. If the broadband service was costing them money then surely they would impose a more stringent FUP on the broadband service first rather than removing it.
quote"if it was about costs we would be seeing sky adding topup fees to their products and they certianly wouldnt have removed their FUP."
I agree if you look back previously sky always whack the prices of their TV services up before anything else if they want more money. If the broadband service was costing them money then surely they would impose a more stringent FUP on the broadband service first rather than removing it.
Posted by
comnut about 1 month ago
quote"Existing Sky Broadband customers will be receiving a 10 month discount of £5/month"
What you are really saying is the following then??
"Existing Sky Broadband customers will not get the increase until 2010"
If your answer is yes, your maths, or date, maybe wrong... 10 months brings you to 20 sept. 2009!
And NO again, my mate on sky wants to keep his telephone...
quote"Existing Sky Broadband customers will be receiving a 10 month discount of £5/month"
What you are really saying is the following then??
"Existing Sky Broadband customers will not get the increase until 2010"
If your answer is yes, your maths, or date, maybe wrong... 10 months brings you to 20 sept. 2009!
And NO again, my mate on sky wants to keep his telephone...
Posted by
andrew (
staff member)
about 1 month ago
"As of March 2009" now do the maths
staff member)
about 1 month ago
"As of March 2009" now do the maths
Posted by
comnut about 1 month ago
yeah I just looked at the 'existing' part....
yeah I just looked at the 'existing' part....
Posted by
Dawn_Falcon about 1 month ago
Csrpet - "loss leader"
Csrpet - "loss leader"
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
quote"Csrpet - "loss leader" "
I assume that was addressed at me.... Loss leader huh? Maybe you missed the news not that long ago that mentioned record number of customers and record profit.
LOL you really are jealous ya stuck in the slow lane with upto 8Mb rubbish and nobody brings you ADSL2+ arnt you? Go on you can be honest with me, let that frustration out.
quote"Csrpet - "loss leader" "
I assume that was addressed at me.... Loss leader huh? Maybe you missed the news not that long ago that mentioned record number of customers and record profit.
LOL you really are jealous ya stuck in the slow lane with upto 8Mb rubbish and nobody brings you ADSL2+ arnt you? Go on you can be honest with me, let that frustration out.
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
watch out for evil sky mwuahahaha with no FUP hahaha no BRAS profiling hahaha no phorm hahaha and adsl2 that works mwuahahahaha.
watch out for evil sky mwuahahaha with no FUP hahaha no BRAS profiling hahaha no phorm hahaha and adsl2 that works mwuahahahaha.
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
Dont forget its evil cost to punters chrysalis, its terrible how people will have to pay £5.
How will those with a real unlimited service survive? Im sure those getting 16Mb are in tears its going to cost them £5 extra, you can almost hear the stampede as customers rush back to the errrr vastly cheaper, superior and faster BT.... Errrr.... Sort of, maybe errrr actually no forget that!
Dont forget its evil cost to punters chrysalis, its terrible how people will have to pay £5.
How will those with a real unlimited service survive? Im sure those getting 16Mb are in tears its going to cost them £5 extra, you can almost hear the stampede as customers rush back to the errrr vastly cheaper, superior and faster BT.... Errrr.... Sort of, maybe errrr actually no forget that!
Posted by
Dawn_Falcon about 1 month ago
Carpet - A "free" service cannot in itself be a revenue opportunity, can it. They're now trying to monetise it by charging one way or another. It was a loss leader.
Also, I don't *care* about absolute service speed (2Mbit would be fine. I have access to *100Mbit* access elsewhere for downloads). I've said this before - I put a premium on low pings and reliability over your fast-but-crap-quality service.
The only frustration is yours.
Carpet - A "free" service cannot in itself be a revenue opportunity, can it. They're now trying to monetise it by charging one way or another. It was a loss leader.
Also, I don't *care* about absolute service speed (2Mbit would be fine. I have access to *100Mbit* access elsewhere for downloads). I've said this before - I put a premium on low pings and reliability over your fast-but-crap-quality service.
The only frustration is yours.
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
sky bb will still be a loss leader with the £5 for non sky talk customers, the level of subsidy in my view which I posted on the forum is closer to £15 month, some people dont realise what it costs to provide internet bandwidth. This £5 isnt about making sky bb profitable for sky its about getting more people on sky talk.
sky bb will still be a loss leader with the £5 for non sky talk customers, the level of subsidy in my view which I posted on the forum is closer to £15 month, some people dont realise what it costs to provide internet bandwidth. This £5 isnt about making sky bb profitable for sky its about getting more people on sky talk.
Posted by
dragon1945 about 1 month ago
When I asked for Free Sky BB I was told it was not available in my area. I was told I could have "paid-for" BB but they wanted £34.99 a month at the time and could only give me 512 kbps. Thanks but no thanks. As for Sky Talk, I still had to pay line rental to BT.
I now have line rental, 01/02/03 calls inclusive, free calls to the USA and Australia, and "free" BB @ 1.6 MB from Talktalk, all for £20.99 a month. Bargain!
When I asked for Free Sky BB I was told it was not available in my area. I was told I could have "paid-for" BB but they wanted £34.99 a month at the time and could only give me 512 kbps. Thanks but no thanks. As for Sky Talk, I still had to pay line rental to BT.
I now have line rental, 01/02/03 calls inclusive, free calls to the USA and Australia, and "free" BB @ 1.6 MB from Talktalk, all for £20.99 a month. Bargain!
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
quote"...low pings and reliability over your fast-but-crap-quality service"
LMFAO.... My connection by a ukonline staffer has been tuned to give the best possible ping rate, something i doubt your ISP would do. But ill entertain you longer if you wish to wave figures about like a lemming flapping as it leaves the cliff edge... Name a site ill ping it with results and see how i compare to you, just for giggles. Go on you have nothing to lose ya jealous enough already LOL The sky thing is just as chrysalis says, all about getting people to take additional services nothing more
quote"...low pings and reliability over your fast-but-crap-quality service"
LMFAO.... My connection by a ukonline staffer has been tuned to give the best possible ping rate, something i doubt your ISP would do. But ill entertain you longer if you wish to wave figures about like a lemming flapping as it leaves the cliff edge... Name a site ill ping it with results and see how i compare to you, just for giggles. Go on you have nothing to lose ya jealous enough already LOL The sky thing is just as chrysalis says, all about getting people to take additional services nothing more
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
Id also love to hear your definition of "CRAP"....
I guess to some "CRAP" = Faster, cheaper, no limitation, broadband ROFL..... Oh i forgot to ask.... Hows that phorm thing working out for you on your opposite to "crap" service bwahaha
Id also love to hear your definition of "CRAP"....
I guess to some "CRAP" = Faster, cheaper, no limitation, broadband ROFL..... Oh i forgot to ask.... Hows that phorm thing working out for you on your opposite to "crap" service bwahaha
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=6ms
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=9ms
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms
Oh no my service is "CRAP" LOL
ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=6ms
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=9ms
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms
Oh no my service is "CRAP" LOL
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
LMAO easynet's LLU at 10pm evening.
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms
Sucks.
LMAO easynet's LLU at 10pm evening.
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms
Sucks.
Posted by
Dawn_Falcon about 1 month ago
Carpet - No, you've swallowed a "tuning" hook, rod line and sinker. And what makes you think I'm concerned with *HTTP* ping? (Especially to the BBC with their recent sub-par peering)
Carpet - No, you've swallowed a "tuning" hook, rod line and sinker. And what makes you think I'm concerned with *HTTP* ping? (Especially to the BBC with their recent sub-par peering)
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
quote"Carpet - No, you've swallowed a "tuning" hook, rod line and sinker. And what makes you think I'm concerned with *HTTP* ping? (Especially to the BBC with their recent sub-par peering)"
My pings were higher than they are and my upstream was lower until a staffer that posts in these forums and helps several users fixed it.
quote"Carpet - No, you've swallowed a "tuning" hook, rod line and sinker. And what makes you think I'm concerned with *HTTP* ping? (Especially to the BBC with their recent sub-par peering)"
My pings were higher than they are and my upstream was lower until a staffer that posts in these forums and helps several users fixed it.
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
Come on tell us all what you are want ping wise or anything else from an ISP and im sure chrysalis and myself will be happy to post how much of a crappy, sucky service we have with actual stats LOL. 6ms far too slow a ping time, thats just shocking, BT is much better. <sarcasm off>
LOL chrysalis will be the first to admit his sync speeds etc are not the best in the world, infact from the forums he is one of the unlucky people that has a poorer line than many, in terms of ping and similar though the service he gets dumps over any upto 8Mb BT carp complete with its interleaving.
Come on tell us all what you are want ping wise or anything else from an ISP and im sure chrysalis and myself will be happy to post how much of a crappy, sucky service we have with actual stats LOL. 6ms far too slow a ping time, thats just shocking, BT is much better. <sarcasm off>
LOL chrysalis will be the first to admit his sync speeds etc are not the best in the world, infact from the forums he is one of the unlucky people that has a poorer line than many, in terms of ping and similar though the service he gets dumps over any upto 8Mb BT carp complete with its interleaving.
Posted by
chrysalis about 1 month ago
CB yeah before I joined ukonline my line was unstable for over a year, another disadvantage dsl has over cable, on cable if you losing synch its treated as a fault and I never lost synch once in 3 years+ on cable, for 18 months on dsl I had synch problems, ip profile problems and when on entanet congestion problems. Ukonline finally got my line stable but this is after a 18 month rough ride. I would say ukonline beats cable but cable beats ipstream.
CB yeah before I joined ukonline my line was unstable for over a year, another disadvantage dsl has over cable, on cable if you losing synch its treated as a fault and I never lost synch once in 3 years+ on cable, for 18 months on dsl I had synch problems, ip profile problems and when on entanet congestion problems. Ukonline finally got my line stable but this is after a 18 month rough ride. I would say ukonline beats cable but cable beats ipstream.
Posted by
Dawn_Falcon about 1 month ago
CB - So he turned interleave off for you. Right.
Also, ime, bad wiring is the most common source of bad ADSL speeds and issues by *far*
Chrysalis - VM don't treat packet loss of 20% and pings of 2000 as a fault, however, as long as you maintain synch.
CB - So he turned interleave off for you. Right.
Also, ime, bad wiring is the most common source of bad ADSL speeds and issues by *far*
Chrysalis - VM don't treat packet loss of 20% and pings of 2000 as a fault, however, as long as you maintain synch.
Posted by
CARPETBURN about 1 month ago
quote"CB - So he turned interleave off for you. Right."
Turned off interleaving, adjusted my noise margin, also adjusted maximum attainable rate.
Made a massive difference to my upstream, halfed my ping times, downstream remained pretty much as it was before but became more stable with SRA enabled to what it was.
The staff member also keeps everyone informed of any issues with the service and in general bends over backwards to help. As to who is worse out of ipstream and cable that is a tough call, cable works fine for many as does ipstream, for a good few more though they do not.
quote"CB - So he turned interleave off for you. Right."
Turned off interleaving, adjusted my noise margin, also adjusted maximum attainable rate.
Made a massive difference to my upstream, halfed my ping times, downstream remained pretty much as it was before but became more stable with SRA enabled to what it was.
The staff member also keeps everyone informed of any issues with the service and in general bends over backwards to help. As to who is worse out of ipstream and cable that is a tough call, cable works fine for many as does ipstream, for a good few more though they do not.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.
Oops, I think they just disuaded my parents from joining them then.