Sian...SCV sport channel increase price.

[whoelse]

I know this will come, nothing we can do about it. More expenses to add on and on.

 

[West_ray]

increase to how much ?

 

[West_ray]

$8 to $15.75 ???????????????

 

[frcfyp]

let's not just blame starhub. for me, i am going to boycott espn sports by not visiting its websites, especially soccernet. it may not make any difference at all, but that's my way to protest.

 

[YoungPAP]

As our esteem mah bow tan like to say, small & gradual increases is better than a huge hike.

More good years. Incremental increase is good.

I know this will come, nothing we can do about it. More expenses to add on and on.

 

[PandaOng]

$8 to $15.75 ???????????????

Are you sure??? :angry:
gonna check it out!! :thumbsd: :thumbsd:

 

[West_ray]

Are you sure??? :angry:
gonna check it out!! :thumbsd: :thumbsd:

the starhub webby says so.

affect from 3 NOV lehz ... cowz ... actually wanted to subscribe, but definitely not now.

 

[sehsuan]

not enough cycling coverage, not enough triathlon coverage. heck, how does ONE channel cover all sports? :dunno:

 

[glennyong]

hmmm..... thats true.. the channel is not very well rounded though... it doens give enough concentration of other sports.. the balance is not there...

i guess.. starhub's increase in the pricing is to maintain its fight over the bigger pie... however i still like Astro way of Satilite tv... one price pay all.. sumoore cheap...

 

[CYRN]

As our esteem mah bow tan like to say, small & gradual increases is better than a huge hike.

More good years. Incremental increase is good.

a little OT... are u the one that submitted the "circle and lightning" (apologies cus YPAP without the Y is censored here) logo in the photomarathon?

 

[CYRN]

hmmm..... thats true.. the channel is not very well rounded though... it doens give enough concentration of other sports.. the balance is not there...

i guess.. starhub's increase in the pricing is to maintain its fight over the bigger pie... however i still like Astro way of Satilite tv... one price pay all.. sumoore cheap...

How come we can't have Astro here :cry:

 

[akane]

sigh singapore too small....too small population to have a few cable tv stations.

they have the monopoly so we LL :dunno:

i think scv is one of the most expensive ard? (in terms of price/channel) :dunno:

 

[radedward]

A very interesting rumour to this price hike

It's been said that SCV already had plans to up the price of the sports channel and the whole dispute with ESPN was just a good excuse for them.

True? :dunno:

only SCV knows.

 

[glennyong]

How come we can't have Astro here :cry:

yah... who wants and dares to fight with Singtel and Starhub now... haha.. u know why ? because DPM Lee's wife is the major shareholder of Singtel and Starhub... she holds the the 2nd largest share of Singtel besides Lee Hsien Yang... and i think she holds 75% of Starhub's shares ? :dunno:

simple reason why theres no competitor for Starhub in cable tv ?

because everyones afraid of the lady at the top of the hill.... and if she gets angry.... the bombs start flying and pricings start floating to the sky.. and we will pay more and lose more to her..

in the end.. we are the losing end.....

 

[jeff49er]

Just my humble opinion, ESPN should pack up and go.

Very sadly we are a small nation and that means we can never enjoy what other mass market can. :cry:

 

[reno77]

I will be cancelling the sports channel.

 

[ptwong]

i'll be cancelling it too....

 

[Pinoy]

I find it unfortunate that Starhub opted for a "One Price Fits All" approach. I think they should have put a lot more consideration to those who may have subscribed to the Sports Channel for reasons other than watching football matches.

I do know some friends who subscribed to it to watch NBA -- whose 2005 season is about to start by November BTW :sweatsm:. If I were in the shoes of my friends, I'd definitely unsubscribe. What? I should pay more for something I watch once in a blue mooon? :bsmilie: Especially in light of the ultra-pathetic coverage they did for the NBA 2004 Finals. :angry:

:Later,

 

[kop]

I find it unfortunate that Starhub opted for a "One Price Fits All" approach. I think they should have put a lot more consideration to those who may have subscribed to the Sports Channel for reasons other than watching football matches.

I do know some friends who subscribed to it to watch NBA -- whose 2005 season is about to start by November BTW :sweatsm:. If I were in the shoes of my friends, I'd definitely unsubscribe. What? I should pay more for something I watch once in a blue mooon? :bsmilie: Especially in light of the ultra-pathetic coverage they did for the NBA 2004 Finals. :angry:

:Later,

they don't really care what you're watching, what they really care about is to make profit. how much they make only they know. they're not willing to disclose the pricing of their negotiation. ;(

 

[Ivan11]

To me, i feel like it might be one of their gimmicks to increase their turnover. They didn't reveal the pricing of the negotiation and SCV being the monopoly of cable TV in S'pore can just suka-suka increase the price ;( .

Anyway, it's unfair that they make subscribers pay just because ESPN decides to charge them highher on their sports package :nono: . Definitely going to cancel it, and anyway CH 5 also not bad, at least on and off got telecast some soccer match :thumbsup: .