Only reason Vm got our broadband was because of appalling line quality cutting speed/reliability on the Bt phone network, or the bit between the cabinet and the house.
We refused to pay any more than minimum for that service, and nobody would fix anything, especially "opencreaps" unless we paid more.
So we went from solely sky customers, to sky tv customers, with phone and bb on Virgin for her work.
So that's free bt sport out the window.
I need to check what we actually pay for sky subscriptions as they've offered major discounts to keep us from moving the tv to Vm as well, plus further discounts as they cocked up our bb disconnection and where still charging us for it 3months after it was cut off.
Worth a call to sky then a call to Bt then.

Her work pay for the Vm bb so there's scope there.
I still don't buy this "competition is good" excuse for enforcing 2 contracts for premier league football. Free offers to initially hook people in aside, it is/will be two subscriptions doubling the cost of the same number if games a season.
When sky lost half the pl football to Setsnta/espn/Bt did they half the sky sports subscription cost? No, course they didn't.

Then Setanta/Espn and eventually Bt will want the same amount for the bt sports sub when the first year is up.
So that's TWICE the money for the same number of games. All it's done is open up another contract to sap more money from the public.
So with that in mind, I have to agree.
But there's no denying premiership football is twice the football it's was in the Division1 days.