Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think that its is not necessary to give each child Sky TV

73 replies

fizzingmum · 02/09/2015 15:17

My DP has a 7 year old son who stays with us 3 nights a week. My DC are 11 & 8, so all are watching different age ranges on tv. I think they should work it out between them and take it in turns, until 8pm when it is adult time. DP thinks that we should get each of the children Sky in their rooms, at a cost of £30 a month. I think that it is unnecessary and indulgent for the amount of time they actually watch tv. I also think that they should be doing other things apart from being glued to the TV. We have recently had a sky box put in our bedroom, so they can have more access to their programmes downstairs. Here is the thing though, regardless of the cost and lifestyle issues, sky can only install four boxes maximum. So we would have to give up having our own sky box in our room, which is a treat for me, that I pay for. We would have 3 children in their own rooms, watching Sky and I wouldn't be able to in our room. I have bought a trampoline for the garden to encourage them outdoors and each of them have ipads with Sky go on them , so can access all the channels.

AIBU to think that it is firstly not necessary and secondly why should I not have sky tv in my room, but the kids each have their own?

OP posts:
Gottagetmoving · 02/09/2015 15:19

Personally I wouldn't allow any TV in their bedrooms so SKY in each sounds ridiculous to me.
They should take turns and compromise with TV.

butttons · 02/09/2015 15:21

What Gottagetmoving said!

Sirzy · 02/09/2015 15:21

I don't like tv is bedrooms let alone sky!

RachelZoe · 02/09/2015 15:23

Fuck that. I hate TV's in kids rooms anyway but full sky each, at the expense of yours, which you pay for and is a treat? No.

ratspeaker · 02/09/2015 15:26

Wouldn't it be cheaper to sign up for sky go then it could be watched on pcs or xboxes?

Littlefish · 02/09/2015 15:28

Absolutely not necessary to have sky in each child's room. in fact, not even necessary (or desirable) to have a television in each child's room.

You have created an opportunity for them to have more choice, by putting sky in your room. They now need to just compromise between themselves on the shared television. There is only 4 years between them, that's really not such a huge age range.

irregularegular · 02/09/2015 15:29

Well given that we have one tv in the house (in the sitting room) and no Sky I'm probably not the most useful person to comment, but obviously I think it is totally ridiculous

(children are 11 and 13)

Leeds2 · 02/09/2015 15:30

Another who wouldn't let primary age children have a TV in their bedrooms.

Tell them they have 10 mins to agree what they are all watching. If they don't/can't, the TV stays off.

overthemill · 02/09/2015 15:31

Children shouldn't hav eTV in their bedrooms. At those ages you need to be supervising what they are watching and preferably watching it with them. And studies show that kids sleep less well with a TV in their room. None of ours has ever had one. Play games with them, get them outside, read with them, parent them! I know it's DH not you

RaspberryOverload · 02/09/2015 15:31

Neither of my DCs have a TV in their rooms, let alone sky or whatever.

There's no need for it. YANBU, at all.

irregularegular · 02/09/2015 15:31

And to say an 8 yr old is watching 'different age ranges on tv' from a 7 yr old is nonsense!

You are envisaging a family life where a 7 yr old, 8 yr old and 11 yr old are sat separately in their rooms watching their tv alone? Really? Is that what anyone wants?

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 02/09/2015 15:31

We have three boys and have only ever had two sky boxes - in the lounge and in their 'den' - and they had to negotiate amongst themselves when they wanted to watch different things.

One thing that helped was having a Sky+ box, so they could record things and watch them later when there was a clash - might that help?

googoodolly · 02/09/2015 15:32

Ridiculous! Children don't need TV's in their rooms anyway, especially not 7 and 8 year olds. You keep your SKY and get rid of your kids TV's!

Theycallmemellowjello · 02/09/2015 15:32

Yeah, how much TV are they watching? Surely an hour of whatever is on CBBC when they get in from school is enough and is fine for all 3?

JustOneMinuteAtATime · 02/09/2015 15:32

If you changed your dish input you could have more than four boxes. We had to do it. It's easy enough, but the standard installation is a maximum of four, and it's a cost to upgrade.

I wouldn't give unlimited TV to primary school aged children. Your way sounds fair to me - learning to compromise and not too much TV.

harrasseddotcom · 02/09/2015 15:33

not necessary but kids get loads of things nowadays that are really 'necessary' so dont see why this should be any different. Plus just because a child has sky in their room does not automatically mean they will not do anything else. My son has sky go in his room through his xbox but does plenty of other activites, mostly football, as well. You'd be cheaper just getting the sky go thing tho which is free for the first two devices like ipad/laptop/pc/mobile/xbox and then an extra £5 if you up to 5 devices. Although dont quote me on that cos its been a while since i read those prices.

StillStayingClassySanDiego · 02/09/2015 15:37

I don't think they should have SKY in their rooms, when it's to the detriment of your viewing preferences absolutely no way!.

They all have an iPad each so they can watch the programmes on that.

londonrach · 02/09/2015 15:37

Tv is childrens room is surely a no no. Ive never had sky so dont really know what thats like but surely theres enough tv channels and dvds out there that you dont need sky unless you like sport? We recently rediscovering a love of music from the 70s and 80s and rarely put the tv on at the moment. Blame it on very cheap cds and youtube! At the risk of sounding old they dont make music like they used to! Grin

Original poster
fizzingmum · 02/09/2015 15:38

They have sky go each, and as I say I bought a trampoline as I would prefer them engaging together in fun and games than watching tv. They do watch different things as DP has a son and my 2 are girls. He watches lego cartoons and they watch Nickleodoen, Cat & Sam etc. They watch about an hour of tv a day through the week and even less at weekends, which is part of my argument that it is a waste. DP argues we can afford it, but I think just because you can afford to give a child something, doesn't mean you should.

OP posts:
StillStayingClassySanDiego · 02/09/2015 15:39

I'd also be aware of them becoming isolated in their rooms and not watching telly downstairs where at least you can try and have a conversation with them.

GladysTheGolem · 02/09/2015 15:40

They would all get a pick (30mins each) on one main TV here.

AlisonWunderland · 02/09/2015 15:41

If they can access Sky Go on their ipads, why do they need a box in their room?

NewLife4Me · 02/09/2015 15:47

We don't have Sky at all and certainly no tv's in rooms.
We have always done things as a family or dc played together, no need for screens. A nice extra for a treat, maybe 30 mins a day but far better to have conversations.

summerconfusion · 02/09/2015 15:49

YANBU at all. Insane idea from your DH. Although I also think it's a bit mad that they all have their own ipads aswell. You're definitely right about the sentiment that just because you can afford it doesn't mean it's right for your children.

mateysmum · 02/09/2015 15:51

NEWSFLASH ! Nobody NEEDS sky TV Grin