Pretty likely the author of this article is confused. They're not charging a fee to users who decide to skip ads. They are, I suspect, offering two services : one is low priced and does not permit skipping ads. The other is priced higher and does permit skipping ads. Much the same as Hulu in the US, or at least the same practical outcome.
That's why folk should read articles instead of trying to understand a nuanced subject that has been condensed to a single sentence. I don't know why people continue to remain shockedpikachu.jpg at the fact that headlines are supposed to grab your attention, and that the onus is on you to read further for clarification.
The second sentence of the article does read "Some Sky TV viewers will be required to pay if they want to fast forward through ad breaks." and it later elaborates with "However, if you happen to purchase a Sky Glass telly or the new Stream box after today, you will need to add the "Ad Skipping Add On pack" to your subscription if you want to spin through those commercials."
The author is not confused, the editor who wrote the headline intentionally manipulated it to grab people's attention.
The article is clear on the change; what you said is in the first couple sentences. You are misreading their terse writing style as them misunderstanding.
14 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 44.2 ms ] thread>The other is priced higher and does permit skipping ads.
Isn't your second comment "a fee to users who decide to skip ads"?
And, yes, that this is a tiered plan is mentioned in the article by the author.
The author is not confused, the editor who wrote the headline intentionally manipulated it to grab people's attention.
Everything else is just the feed and manure necessary to keep the cattle returning.