This share kust keeps refusing to lay down and die for me. Every time it gets close to my stop loss the trend reverses.oh well may as well keep the dividends
Printable View
Any guesses on the outcome of the Commerce Commission decision?
I'm thinking it'll get approved, but not quite willing to put my money where my mouth is. Big money to be made on Thursday if you're willing to jump in and it gets the go ahead.
Tom Pullar-Strecker thinks it won't happen
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...-for-rejection
I hope it does but wouldn't bet on it. I bought 10,000 SKT at 3.96 last year before the proposed merger was announced. I bought them knowing SKT was up against it and may eventually be consumed by Amazon Prime; Lightbox; Netflix and a myriad of other future providers and competitors including companies like Spark bidding and winning high end sports (funny how Spark didn't at all have a problem with the merger when it was announced and "welcomed the competition" but now has done a u-turn). I bought hoping this would be a long way off - 15 years or more at least and in the meantime dividends would keep flowing. Things seem to be happening a lot more quickly.
I reckon it'll go through. NZME/Fairfax will be the more interesting one
I don't think it will go through without some conditions put on it.
I am hoping these might be around the monopoly that SKY have on live sport in this country.
not a good half year result tbh.
subs down.
Revenue down, costs up
Revised full year forecast for FY down 5-7%
this beast is dying slowly.
Expected result
Spark wins the battle and gets a stay. VF and SKY must wait 3 days after the decision to merge. They will be FUMING
Its worse, its 3 days after the REASONS are released, not the decision - the CC has said the reasons will come a lot later - its unclear when that will be, but it will weeks if not months.
The whole deal has a breakup clause (as in either side can pull out if they want) on 28th of Feb - which is now blown unless they both agree to extend it .
Wow had completely forgotten about the drop dead date, high stakes stuff indeed.
Deal's off
abandon ship!
finally the wake up call for Sky to start innovating? do they have enough time left though..
Minimoke, you should be happy, you finally hit your stop loss, couple of days after getting your divvy!
Just from a very superficial viewpoint, and no disrespect to John Fellet, but I have often wondered how a guy who is has been at Sky since 1991 as COO or CEO (that's 26 years) and in his 60's is still CEO and running the show. Rapid technological change and heavy disruption - is he the best person to guide the ship and foresee where the business is going and guide it through? Do you need a younger/more digital or internet savvy person running the cutter??
My understanding was that JF had some very good connections into successive governments which kept the regulators at bay for many years - not what you know but who you know (and can influence). The proposed merger with Vodafone appears to have pushed the boundary too far
I agree with the second sentence and see content being sold directly by the producer to the customer ie. no forced bundling (eg to get sky sports you have to buy all the sky basic channels). No idea on timing though, maybe gradually over the next 10 years? Perhaps buying content in a similar way to the app shop for smart phones, but with regionalised pricing to reflect different value in each market.
And this means I do not see the first sentence as being likely to dominate, but it would be another niche for subscribers who prefer that someone else does the leg work
Kind of like how travel agents still exist. We can all book direct with airlines and hotels and save some money, but some people just prefer to use a travel agent
FYI I see Sky Sport as a production company, so SKT has in my view a reasonable future, albeit in a different niche than their current mixed model of being a content producer and a content bundler
No stumpy, it's correct - many of the streams which the plugins provide access to come from legitimate subscribers who have been recruited to stream services onto the internet. Typically an additional streaming media device is placed onto their local LAN and connected to their set top box. I myself have been asked and been offered inducements for this while living in Canada, but I declined.
Stumpy, to be clear - someone needs to have subscribed to the content (e.g. HBO, Showtime, Sports) in order for it to be released on the internet and available via the plugins. That's completely correct. http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/images/icons/icon7.png
I think stumpy is trying to clarify to zaphod that, the 'streams' come from legitimate distributors (of content)
"many of the streams which the plugins provide access to come from legitimate subscribers"
Any which way, SKY have a stranglehold on the sport channels and the financial resources to sustain it for the foreseeable future.
What they need to do is, imho, tap into the broader content distribution market and publish through their set-top box and Internet channels, in order to remain relevant for the longer term.
Fortunately they have Mr Handley on the board who knows this, and much more, so they'll be right for longer than most would think possible.
Hope they have plan c as well
I thought the joint deal would be a decent one for customers. Now it's off I hope they think of starting their own broadband and doing their own joint package - I'm sure they have the capability to do just that.
Didn't own but bought a few at 3.70
The key issue is Sky have been so fearful of transforming that they havent preemptively cannibalized their business model, the outcome was always going to be the same.
They could have front footed it, given the infrastructure is already largely paid for, the cost is licensing, they can either change, and accept reduced profit margins, or lose it all.
I know a number of their die hard older subscribers who have now cancelled their subscriptions, these are people that 5 years ago never would have contemplated cancelling, they just couldnt justify the cost for what is essentially a rugby subscription.
Think Fellet should roll on this now, hes done his dash, they need someone with vision before it enters a death spiral.
Note, we use an Amazon Fire Stick with Kodi now in our flat, doesn't matter that someone else is paying for the subscription, until Sky realises their business model is broken, they won't change.
From the NBR -
Meanwhile, Fellet muses that after a poor first-half result, Sky TV boss John Fellet says the second half looks better, at least in terms of content that's likely to win back subs -- whether his company is standalone or combined with Vodafone:
"I’ve been in New Zealand for 26 years and by far the hottest ticket in a 12 year period is always the Lions’ tour. It’s even bigger for us than the Rugby World Cup"
"We’ve got the America’s Cup for the first time, so we’re pretty excited about that."
"The Rugby League World Cup is coming up later this year."
"Then on the entertainment side, the equivalent for the Rugby World Cup, [the new series] of Game of Thrones. And I think that’ll hit this market around June."
Lions' Tour - I'll give him that - dunno if it will win back subs but it might slow the rot with the diehards for a bit longer. You wonder if one day that SANZAR, the NZRFU or even the RWC are going to finally realise that they can disintermediate, produce and control the content themselves rather than allowing a broadcaster to skim the tab...
America's Cup - it's in Bermuda this time which isn't the greatest time zone slot in the world and we've never had the event on payTV so it will be interesting to see if they win back subs for this event.
RLWC - Yeah ok - there isn't a lot of depth in teams outside NZ, Australian and GB but yep diehards will be there but you can also see a lot of folk trying to stream the few games that will matter.
Game of Thrones - yes that's a drawcard. It's also the most heavily pirated series in history although to be fair Sky has tried to bring on the content as quickly as it screens elsewhere to counter that and HBO at least still screens the series in linear mode
I as well as nearly everyone I know (except for my mother in law) have ditched Sky for the kodi app. My nexbox running android cost me NZ$45 on Ebay incuding postage. I can stream just about any content I like, legal as well as slightly less than legal. Kodi is a free app which you can install on any phone, tablet, computer etc. The app is not illegal it is a free source app. I havent quite got a smart TV yet but you could probably load it on a smart TV. Sky is going to have to look at their model very closely to survive. They already have an internet based system in place running Neon TV. Its a little dearer than Netfflix, Lightbox eand many others. I see them writing off quite a few of their Mysky boxes soon, which will put a dent in their earnings.
Hmmm..some are grey area stuff...like picking up International Cricket when India plays at home on India's free to air TV feeds... may need proxy servers to view the Indian website now but running proxies aren't illegal either..
Old systems become the establismment by cementing in their dominate presence over time by getting laws passed to protect that system and the whole network which depends on that systems survival ..Therefore, all new budding disruptive systems which threatens the old estabilishment are therefore deemed as illegal...
Industrial Revolutions (We are in the 3rd one presently) breaks down old establishment systems and replaced with new more efficient streamlined systems using new production methods and innovative behaviour.
SKY has Luddite thinking ...avoid!
EDIT: Interesting as time passes how a tech disruptive system slowly morphs into an establishment..Are we are witnessing this with Google? New search engines popping up (deemed as unsavoury by the establishment) to fill that Torrent site search engine demotion (censor) void e.g Duckduckgo.
True but let's be honest, people are talking about All Blacks, Black Caps, Game of Thrones etc. If they are talking about replacing SKY with Kodi then they are talking about replacing SKY content with Kodi... and SKY generally has exclusive rights to their content in NZ. It's illegal. I'm no judging, but that's what it is.
Actually how do you know it isn't legal - is there a case where this has actually been tested here? There are parallel imported products, there are region 1 DVDs you can purchase freely and arrive here, there are products that aren't available to directly ship here from the US you can freight forward via YouShop - yes that's products and that is not illegal.
But you can subscribe to the US Amazon Prime service which is not geo-blocked and watch content that someone may have rights to in New Zealand, you can rent movies on a US shop iTunes account or an Australian one and watch them here - again that is greyer but consensus is neither of these isn't illegal to do either.
Now if something is being screened free to air somewhere then it's clearly not illegal to watch or even record it.
If something is available to watch for free via stream but is geo blocked then most folk can't watch it. There's nothing not legal in operating a proxy or even a secure VPN - so if it happens that a stream becomes available to view of a free to air stream somewhere else, tell me how by opening that stream you have done something illegal. As far as exclusive rights are concerned, that's a contract between a broadcaster and a content provider - not any contract between a consumer and anyone else.
Now your countervailing argument is that the content is copyrighted but is there any real difference between a parallel imported DVD of season 1 of Man in the High Castle and someone watching Man in the High Castle on demand on Amazon Prime - as opposed to say watching it on TV3? I would say very little at all - the content provider has been compensated for the content.
Next you have to ask with an FTA stream where's the actual breach of the rights? Yes the content provider has been paid for an FTA in a country but not necessarily by a viewer in NZ. Granted, the FTA streaming 'broadcaster' has geo blocked the content which they would be duly obligated to do as part of the contract between content provider and the broadcaster but how far do they go and do they actually care if the content leaks unless there is a breach of their contract with the provider.
Perhaps there may be a breach of the terms of distribution of that content but have you ever seen such terms on the on demand services you can watch on TV here or on any FTA channel?
I'd agree on the other hand with streaming of paid subscriptions that is clearly a breach of the terms that you sign up when you do contract with say Sky - that is a breach of contract.
A stream of an FTA that isn't as clear cut as you'd seem to suggest.
Disc - No SKT held, I do have two paid subscriber services and I don't have a Kodi box.
There was a case in the UK where Sky's namesake tried to sue someone who brought content off a cheaper overseas supplier. The person contested Sky's claims and won.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-17150054
Someone more knowledgeable in this field than I once remarked, "The only secure intellectual property claim in one that is not contested."
I have posted before how the new IPv6 internet protocol makes one-to-many streaming of content a far less difficult technical challenge. Content aggregators such as SKY are in danger of being by-passed by sporting codes such as rugby who may choose to stream coverage directly to subscribers.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
The parallel importing was to do with Netflix, where you are paying Netflix and Netflix has the licence in the US or wherever you are VPN'ing from.
Who's paying Kodi/whoever to watch the All Blacks on their Kodi box? No-one. Is there a free licence for the content? No. And if there was a free licence, did it allow for a person receiving it to then re-broadcast it worldwide? No.
And even if you are paying someone via Kodi, are they officially licensed in some capacity to have the All Blacks and to transmit it to you? No.
All illegal.
We can go round in circles but these IP rights are not black and white. Your position is that there is no grey but yet there is no actual case law that supports your absolute assertions.
You show me where the licence terms are for TV1, TV3, Prime or for that matter any FTA Freeview terrestrial or Satellite service and where those receiving that service
actually actively agrees not to copy, record, disseminate, reproduce, or transmit any content thereby broadcast and I will agree with you about legality because it would be a breach of contract.
But the fact is, there isn't and never has been a licence agreement with the FTAs - not disputing content from a subscription service where someone did have to actively agree to abide by the providers' terms but a plain old FTA simply doesn't have those agreements probably ever since we got rid of the annual TV licence fee.
You forget that there are transmissions of live AB games FTA particularly in Australia - simply because under antisiphoning rules they must be FTA - so you tell me where the broadcaster of an Australian FTA specifically contracts with any viewer about not passing it via a KODI box. Nah, I can't see an agreement there either.
The exclusive rights is a contract between the content provider and SKY for that exclusivity in distribution - the FTA in Australia is obliged under their rights to attempt to stop redistribution but it is not in breach for them if someone watches that content in NZ after taking reasonable steps to prevent it.
What was with the drop? 10c drop but no announcement
As much as I think Sky TV is in trouble over the long term, $3.60 is starting to look tempting given they have a monopoly over pay for view sport and that looks to remain for a long while yet.
The Robot: Danger, Will Robinson!
The Robot: Warning! Warning! Alien spacecraft approaching!
Dr. Smith: We're doomed!
Attachment 8722
Yes you could say that. There is a wealth of opinion on this thread, it would be worthwhile scrolling back a dozen or more pages and reading the story of SKT's woes.
Regardless of all that wisdom, consider that the chart I posted is Monthly 'closing price'. SKT has been in a severe SP down trend for almost three years, it is way below the 20 months moving average (that is an approximation of a 400 day moving average), and is now well below the last gasp 78.6% fibonacci from the GFC lows. It is a truely very seriously ugly SP chart.
JMHO, that SKT has yet to re-invent itself, while its content sourcing is still very capable, it's content distribution is woeful and as long as subscribers (who are imo being ripped off) are declining, one can only expect the FA of the company to wane also.
Eventually if they don't fix the content distribution (increasing eyeballs, wallets and revenue for the whole value chain), the content sources will seek other distributors. SKT are seriously exposed to content distribution disruption as well, as content sources can mount their own online content distribution easily at relatively low costs, cutting out the intermediary (Sky).
SKT is farming an apathetic legacy subscriber base, which is fine as long as they are growing 'online' subscribers faster than they are losing legacy 'set top box' subscribers, but they're not. At this stage it looks like SKT are broken and in a low glide to oblivion.
Even Skodafone is a dead duck, even though it is less than obvious how a long term sub-distributor (Vodafone) would have made that much difference to Sky revenues just because the ownership model changed.
There is nothing in the FA or the TA now that would encourage me to go anywhere near buying (or holding) SKT.
Just be patient, they might sort it out some day even if it's a few years away. They still have a very large legacy subscriber base, though their challenge is to retain it and convert it progressively, without sustained losses, to online distribution.
If or when SKT demonstrate a reversal of fortunes, the market will recognise that and respond with an up turn in the SP. Until then, there are better (and worse) companies to invest in and one should expect SKT to stay in a sustained SP down trend.
Until that happens, stand back, enjoy the show and learn as we watch a once proud company either destroy itself, or reinvent itself. There is no middle ground.
This week, I returned my last decoder, went into the drop off point at lunchtime, there were 3 people ahead of me in a line, the guy eventually took it, he was very efficent, a process well practiced, I said are are you always busy, he said busier than we have ever been, especially in the last few months, it has gone through the roof - he went and put the old decoder literally in a pile next to other stacks in a room, of what looked like must be a hundred plus? he said SKY come and pick them off him a couple of times a week - his business collecting boxes as a sideline to the main point of the store - presumably for a fee - appeared to be booming. The boxes with all the cables etc are quite large and bulky - surprisingly so, makes me wonder where they are storing them all. Must be a large warehouse somewhere if they lost 50k customers alone last year.
If you look at all of those at the average revenue of ~85 a month and say there was a hundred there - thats 100k pa revenue lost from one place - with multiple dropoffs a week.. That would have to be a bit troubling, so yes they have a big base, but if its not growing its sure being whittled away.
The guy ahead of me in the line, as he was walking out - said. Sell your SKY Shares..... indeed.
Fans who watch Premier League matches for free using a Kodi set-top box could be cut off following a High Court ruling.
Mr Justice Arnold approved a bid, launched by the Premier League, to block connections showing unlicensed match streams.
Britain’s four biggest broadband providers to Virgin Media, BT, Sky and Talk Talk will now be able to shut off connections hosting pirated streams.The Kodi set-top box was causing particular concern for BT and Sky which had both paid millions for licences to host Premier League games.
Free lunch coming to an end ?
5% up today. What's going on? I've still got a small amount of this basket case and am about to pull the trigger
Well, gotta wait and see what Plan B is about
It is a pity that Sky don't off a Skygo online sub only (at a reduced cost) whereby you could select which channels to pay for.
You are probably right. However I am seriously considering cancelling my sub as there are only two channels we watch at the moment and I don't think that is worth what I pay....whereas if there was a reduced sub for skygo only or an even cheaper option for skygo limited to certain channels, I would definitely keep that sky sub. So for me, sky may have no cash coming in, unless they offer a Skygo alone service.
SkyGo in my experience is the suckiest flakiest most unreliable online streaming service on the planet, particularly if you are wanting to watch something popular. It is a disgrace and I think it must be designed to put set-top box subscribers off moving to digital online. Truely, it is a butt ugly pig dog. Neon is a bit better, Fanpass is much better but only for sports.
You'd have to ask yourself why Sky would have a set-top box subscriber base and THREE disparate online distribution services effectively competing against each other for eyeballs. The content is different but why three disparate online subscriber channels? Doh! Talk about confusing!
A little research and most people who subscribe to legacy Sky imo will find a way to abandon their set top boxes and their $90+ per month subscription fees, for a pay as you go online service, maybe even from Sky, that serves up just the stuff you want to watch when you want to watch it.
There's the rub, Sky seem to have the online subscription services lurking, but it's confusing and has seriously variable performance issues, so taking the plunge to advertise them in favour of the set-top box subscriber base, i.e. cannibalise the traditional channel, seems too far a leap at this stage.
Disrupt yourself or be disrupted Sky. The Choice seems simple from a consumer perspective, obviously it appears a bit more complicated if you're the provider.
So this is a prime example of the poor management and short sighted decision making at sky.
Sky Go is terrible, however Fanpass runs on the far superior Neulion platform (the same one that Coliseum used for their premier league pass). Except subscribers can’t access Fanpass when Sky Go falls over (and this happens almost always when a decent cricket/rugby game is on). Why Sky committed to Sky Go instead of going with a superior alternative I don’t know, but years of complaints hasn’t worked. Maybe people cancelling their subscriptions might kick them into doing something productive.
I cancelled Sky (via Vodafone cable) more than a year ago and have been using Kodi running on a Raspberry Pi for streaming TV and movies. But I haven't found a good reliable source for live rugby.
Then the other day a nice young man turned up at the door offering free installation satellite Sky including Sports for $39/month for 12 months, cancellable after 6 months. mmm in 6 months Super Rugby will be finished and the Lions will have come and gone, so why not? The price after 12 months jumps to $105 per month but I'll be long gone by then.
All I know is they keep ring up saying you are a valued customer so we are offering you Rialto (usually this Channel occasionally SoHo) for a month free and then you can cancel.
Haven't taken one up yet, the trick is that YOU have to remember to cancel it before the month is up otherwise you will be charged.
Huge dump on friday (20m shares). Anyone know where to find who (individual/institution) bought/sold??
It's bad, very bad .. big exits as the SP approaches all time lows $3.15 (which was the bottom of the GFC, so no correlation to the current self inflicted woes). TA would suggest that's a decent support, but the FA looks like it will just smash any chart supports, the company is in a nose dive staring into the abyss.
https://nzx.com/companies/SKT/announcements/298570
This announcement answered your question, blackrock one day trading volume was over 19m, end up overall holding increase from 10.311% to 12.287%.
Ah yea saw this. Thanks :)
Hmmm Sky and Vodafone challenging decision. SP up 6% on that news.
Last Friday 99.9% whole day trading volume was contributed by one trader-BlackRock(sell and buy), sp was be manuipulated.
Harris and Kiltearn also buying...
Anyone else see this ("Sky, Vodafone To Push Ahead With NZ Merger")? Fills in some background around the SKT announcement.
www.sharecafe.com.au/sharecafe.asp?a=AV&ai=43522
If they're offering Spark and 2degrees a reasonable deal (even if Spark refuses to take it) then I think it will be difficult for the commission to block it...and if they do SKT/VOD will probably go ahead anyway.
Makes sense - ..I don't think the fact that BskyB do broadband as well as programmes in the UK is a problem over there. And if Spark want the All Blacks games they can bid for them.
No more daily or weekly FanPass! I giant step backwards for the online streaming service. Utilisation of FanPass will drop off the cliff, imho.
"We wanted to let you know about some changes we’re making to the passes available on Fan Pass.
We wanted Fan Pass to give Kiwis the freedom to dip in and out of sport by offering short-term flexible passes. However, sports rights aren’t cheap and it’s just not stacking up for us as much as we’ve tried to make it work. So we’ve had to make the following changes which will affect you:
- From 24th May, you’ll no longer be able to get a Day or Week pass on Fan Pass.
- The cost of the Month pass will increase from $55.99 per month to $99.99 per month from 24th May.
- We’ll be introducing a 6 Month pass which will be a one-off payment of $329.99. It’s a big payment upfront but it still works out as less than $2 a day which is pretty good value. That could give you the entire All Blacks Season from kick off to the final whistle.
If none of these changes are your cup of tea, SKY have got an offer where you can join SKY with no joining fee and get a $150 account credit on a 6 month Basic contract. If you want further information, call SKY on 0800 800 759.
The team at Fan Pass will still be working hard on the side line to make sure you’ve got a great sport streaming service to watch SKY Sport 1-4 and Pay-Per-View Events.
Thanks
The team at FAN PASS
Emphasis added. Off with the nose to spite the face. Boo Sky Boo.
Why offer Fanpass at all it is the question - as you say its basically the same deal. The attraction was just paying for the days you wanted. Putting that aside, the $329 option is only $54 a month - so thats the same price as current - and a lot cheaper than month to month - but you have to commit to 6 months and they get the cash up front.
I would guess its all about this - I think they have sat around and thought, We would rather lose the occasional daily fan pass revenue to get people onto a 6month committed payment with the bonus of the cash in advance which is basically our old school existing model in disquise. As we all know, outside of whatever SKY offer - local sports fans have few other options so will most likely just suck it up.
No longer content with just sitting on their hands while people get their content elsewhere, they've decided to actually go backwards now. lol
Sky wonder why they have no customer loyality then they do things like this
Funnily enough, I was looking forward to noting that for the very first time in my life I have given some money to Sky - for a fanpass during America's Cup coverage. They have just exceeded my pricing squeal point however.
I really do understand why so many people, including friends of mine do the "free" streaming thing. So many providers outside of NZ so even though Duco (boxing example) squeal they can do nothing about it. A mate of mine (professional) pretty much streams everything he and his wife watch for free. Sure quality is a little less but there are some pretty good ones out there. That includes sports and movies/series. SKY will not last another 5 years with their current model.
No one - Sky, Netflix, etc. - can compete with "free" services. But let's face it, those "free" streamed services are being fed from customers who have legitimate access to the content.
What part do the professional sports play in all of this? How much are they charging for rights? I suspect a very pretty penny.
We are now also seeing groups hacking streaming providers and attempting to extract ransoms (e.g. last week's Netflix v The Dark Overlord incident). How much will this cost the new players in the industry, and what is the likely impact on subscription fees?
The whole industry is in a state of turmoil.
Time to watch less TV.
How is that when you get a pass this is what you get on your statement...
Fan Pass Nz London W30Rg Gbr
$19.99
How much is Sky NZ actually getting?
Sky have waited far too long to get a move on, Fellet does not fill me with much optimism about the future of Sky.. as great as he is, I dont see him leading the way forward for Sky for the next 5-10 years.
The thing that doesn't make sense, to me at least, is that they're saying openly that the FanPass service isn't working out ... that has to mean it's not making a profit.
But the response seems weird to cut out the daily and weekly passes, justified obliquely by saying sports distributions cost us a lot money and we reckon you numbnuts will fall for ... a denial of short term subscriptions to watch a game or a week of skysports, by paying an even higher monthly rate than our set-top-box subscribers, without access to any of the other Sky movies and 50+ other channels? What! Have they got rocks in their head? Who approves this sh1t?
The attraction of FanPass is to online streaming viewers who are prepared to pay for a quick fix (daily) or a week of sports, and previously until this price rort, a month of sports. Denying those subscriptions immediately disenfranchises current Fanpass users, and eliminates the revenue. Whoa, incredible isn't it?
So it looks like a gamble, or self inflicted suicide by a thousand cuts, on their stumbling bumbling entry into online streaming services.
What makes more sense would be to create an array of subscription types, and offer up all Sky channels online (using the Fanpass platform which actually works well). For example, pay for a game, or a movie, or a show, pay for a week of anything, or two weeks, or a month, or buy 3 months or 6 months, or a year. Feast on our content and here's the price.
But no. They've bascially reverted to the set-top-box subscription model, with higher costs and fewer services, and are trying to pitch that to the fast paced, low attention span, click here click there, internet viewer. Seems an invitation to the illegal viewers, who don't pay a cent, but won't be denied their game of footy.
It's doomed I tell ya, doomed! Seems to me they're the numbnuts.
An ex-Fanpass subscriber.
BAA
Sky TV slashes Fan Pass sports service
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...sports-service
Fellet needs to go, immediately.
What a ridiculous move. It's almost like they're deliberately trying to drive their customers away to the free streams.