Subscription TV

Do I really need Sky Sports?
It's funny the sort of things you think about when you're lying wide awake at 4:30 in the morning. I'm not quite sure how I managed to go from stressing about half a dozen work related issues to thinking about TV. But I did, and I found myself trying to work out whether I could really justify spending something in the region of £700 per year on Sky TV. There are many advantages to Sky:

  • Sky+ is a brilliant product, especially with the ability to set recordings remotely via text or a native iPhone app
  • Pausing live TV, recording one channel and watching another are really handy
  • HD sport is noticeably clearer and better than SD broadcasts
  • If I didn't have Sky Sports I wouldn't have been able to watch the Miracle of Medinah
  • I really enjoy watching NFL
  • H really enjoys some of the additional channels for American "trash"
  • Premier League football
  • I have ESPN and ESPN America too. And I really like US sports
  • The Sky Go iPhone app is quality
But, many of these advantages are available with other TV watching solutions. And we're not such avid fans of any particular TV series that we couldn't buy a DVD or Blu Ray boxset instead. So, it basically boils down to whether I can cope without access to Sky Sports. 
I'm thinking that I can. You can stream NFL and NBA online. And you can do both for half the price of Sky, if you really can't cope. And there's always MoTD or that funny old thing call a "pub" to watch the footy in. I think I'm persuading myself.