HD is the norm now, so why are we paying extra for it?

RedOrDead36RedOrDead36 Posts: 1,629
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Yes, I'm talking to you $ky! How do they justify charging a premium for their sports and movie channels in HD when all FTV channels come as HD standard as do the mid-range channels like Nat Geo etc? Why are we still paying premiums for it? Their SD on Virgin at least looks awful. Maybe because I've been watching HD football all summer but paying £7 extra for it seems a con to me!

On the same subject, when will the digital providers switch the SD channel numbers with the HD ones? Surely HD has now become the majority so BBC1 HD should be on channel 101 not 108 etc.

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 347
    Forum Member
    Considering we're in the early stages of 4K, HD should start becoming a standard and not a luxury. We're fortunate with Virgin that the only extra you have to pay for HD is the premium Sky channels. But I've always thought that Sky have one hell of a cheek asking for extra money for HD channels.
  • ramraiderukramraideruk Posts: 1,190
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I suppose it's still considered premium as people are willing to pay for the supplemental service. If people refused to pay for it then $ky would have to include it as part of a standard package. A lot of ITV, Channel 4&5 HD broadcasts are behind the paywall so people must be willing to pay for them.
  • ocavocav Posts: 2,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bassebuwa wrote: »
    Considering we're in the early stages of 4K, HD should start becoming a standard and not a luxury. We're fortunate with Virgin that the only extra you have to pay for HD is the premium Sky channels. But I've always thought that Sky have one hell of a cheek asking for extra money for HD channels.

    1. Virgin do charge for HD, it's just neatly tucked away inside a bundle, notice you have to have XL for the HD channels?

    2. Sky don't technically charge for non-premium HD anymore, as, like Virgin, it's included in a bundle (Family)
  • Jaycee DoveJaycee Dove Posts: 18,762
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why pick on Sky with the now very old and silly dollar sign?

    BT charge extra for HD. And they have just put up all their phone and broadband customer prices to mean that even non TV subscribers will part pay to offset their rising costs for sport (in SD and HD at a premium).

    So do several mainstream channels - even ITV - whose new HD channel is behind a pay wall.

    So actually everyone charges for HD pretty much.

    Because it still costs more to transmit that way.

    Though it will eventually change.

    Indeed Sky have gradually phased it out - dropping the multiroom HD sub a couple of years ago and offering a half price HD sub for a package of channels instead of having to pay for everything.
  • Bandspread199Bandspread199 Posts: 4,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1. Virgin do charge for HD, it's just neatly tucked away inside a bundle, notice you have to have XL for the HD channels?

    The FTA Channels and a few others are available in HD on the L package.

    But can the younger, gadget eaters please realisethat 4K is years away? The broadcasters have invested a fortune in HD - they are not going to ditch this for a new sustem which will cost them plenty and will be appreciated by only a few 'techies'. Remember when 625 was considered HD?

    Personally, I watch tv for the programmes!
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,453
    Forum Member
    I suppose it's still considered premium as people are willing to pay for the supplemental service. If people refused to pay for it then $ky would have to include it as part of a standard package.

    Exactly. I don't and won't pay for HD and if enough other people wouldn't, they'd drop it.

    It's HD subscriber daftness, simple as.
  • LudwigVonDrakeLudwigVonDrake Posts: 12,836
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Charging for HD these days is easy money for all service providers. I'm sure they've long since paid off the cost of the infrastructure and/or upgrades they needed when HD arrived.

    Maybe its now going to subsidise the 4K transition, but no doubt those channels will be at a premium when they arrive.
  • BahtatBahtat Posts: 756
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why is there always one who has to complain about someone (quite rightly) using the $ sign in $ky?
  • RadiomikeRadiomike Posts: 7,927
    Forum Member
    d'@ve wrote: »
    Exactly. I don't and won't pay for HD and if enough other people wouldn't, they'd drop it.

    It's HD subscriber daftness, simple as.

    Using that argument presumably you'd also advocate everybody refusing to pay any subscription charge (including the tv licence) on the basis that then "they'd drop it".

    Similarly, I don't think there's any need to call people who choose to approach things differently from yourself "daft". Particularly when Sky has over 5m HD subscribers alone.

    If you don't want to pay for it as a specific charge fine, but even if there wasn't a separate HD charge you would still effectively be paying for it in the subscription fee however it was described. In the same way that you pay for channels you don't watch but which are in the bundles you want. Simple as.
  • Hollie_LouiseHollie_Louise Posts: 39,761
    Forum Member
    Why are you paying for it? Because you choose to.

    How can they justify it? Because people pay for for it
  • stevvy1986stevvy1986 Posts: 7,061
    Forum Member
    Bahtat wrote: »
    Why is there always one who has to complain about someone (quite rightly) using the $ sign in $ky?

    Because it's pathetic and childish.
  • jojoenojojoeno Posts: 1,842
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wouldn't have $ky anywhere near me, best thing I ever done ripping their shit system out and throwing it in the bin, mind you I still use their wonderful dish for my Humax box FOC
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How is HD the norm? All new television sets on sell are now at least HD ready, yet the majority of them do not have HD tuners. Only half of Sky's subscribers take their HD packages. Those two facts alone make it almost impossible for even 50% of households to be watching in HD.

    The reason why in England BBC one and ITV etc. are not on 101 and 103 is because only some to none of the different regional versions are in HD. With things like Channel 4 and 5 although they do not have different programming, they have regions for advertising and so want people to watch the SD version by default as only one will be in HD.

    And whether the norm or not, broadcasting in HD costs more money. Someone can probably provide correct figures, but the bandwidth needed via satellite for an HD channel is around the same as three to four SD ones, so at least tripling the cost, in addition to still having to provide the SD feed too.

    Channels charge extra to provide HD versions of their channels, the extra fee does not all go back to Sky or any other platform. How many of them would still broadcast in HD if they got nothing extra in return, yet still had to pay increased costs? As it is there are still a number of notable channels, including Gold and Sky 2 (which has shown original content and not just reruns from Sky 1) that are only available in SD.

    Even in the US where HD is the norm – as they had for much longer and because the lower NTSC resolution and lack of widescreen SD meant it was a much more significant improvement than it was for us – cable companies still charge more for HD. It is not just Sky.
  • lalalala Posts: 21,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mavreela wrote: »

    The reason why in England BBC one and ITV etc. are not on 101 and 103 is because only some to none of the different regional versions are in HD.
    WRONG! BBC London news is actually filmed in HD... I know this because in the morning whilst watching BBC Breakfast on BBC NEWS HD channel, when they switch to regional news, BBC London is shown in HD!
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lala wrote: »
    WRONG! BBC London news is actually filmed in HD... I know this because in the morning whilst watching BBC Breakfast on BBC NEWS HD channel, when they switch to regional news, BBC London is shown in HD!

    How does that make me wrong? I said in the part you quoted that some regions are in HD, so the point you are trying to make would be proving me right.

    But how it is filmed is irrelevant, and not something I made any comment about. There is no BBC one London HD to put on channel 101.

    No matter what platform you watch in London, including Freeview, you get the same national BBC one HD feed with the "This is BBC one HD" screen telling you to switch to the SD channel during BBC London News.
  • BKMBKM Posts: 6,912
    Forum Member
    Yes, I'm talking to you $ky! How do they justify charging a premium for their sports and movie channels in HD when all FTV channels come as HD standard as do the mid-range channels like Nat Geo etc? .
    Add me to the long list of people who disagree with your basic premise that "HD is the norm" - it most certainly is not!
  • ocavocav Posts: 2,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The FTA Channels and a few others are available in HD on the L package.

    But can the younger, gadget eaters please realisethat 4K is years away? The broadcasters have invested a fortune in HD - they are not going to ditch this for a new sustem which will cost them plenty and will be appreciated by only a few 'techies'. Remember when 625 was considered HD?

    Personally, I watch tv for the programmes!

    The only difference between Sky's Non-Pay HD channels and Virgins Non-XL HD channels is Channel 5 HD and Film 4 HD. All the other FTA HD channels are available free with Sky, just like they are with Virgin.
  • anthony davidanthony david Posts: 14,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sky and Virgin are commercial subscription operators. You don't have to have them in either HD or SD. It's your personal choice, you read and agreed to the terms and conditions when you signed the contract.
  • gomezzgomezz Posts: 44,517
    Forum Member
    What is more sneaky has been the reduction in quality of the SD channels to "encourage" people to take the HD versions.
  • BahtatBahtat Posts: 756
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stevvy1986 wrote: »
    Because it's pathetic and childish.

    Can't say it bothers me really.
  • Jason CJason C Posts: 31,194
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gomezz wrote: »
    What is more sneaky has been the reduction in quality of the SD channels to "encourage" people to take the HD versions.

    That's an excellent point.
  • RedOrDead36RedOrDead36 Posts: 1,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gomezz wrote: »
    What is more sneaky has been the reduction in quality of the SD channels to "encourage" people to take the HD versions.

    This is definitely true with Sky Sports it looks awful in SD! Still I'm not paying the fee, I'll just watch an HD stream instead :p @ Sky.

    Don't buy the bandwidth argument, with improvements in technology bandwidth has bcame cheaper and cheaper since the launch of HD and will continue to do so.
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Don't buy the bandwidth argument, with improvements in technology bandwidth has bcame cheaper and cheaper since the launch of HD and will continue to do so.

    Could you be more specific please.

    I admit I have no idea what the price is now or when HD started, but at least a few years ago the average cost of renting transponder capacity was increasing, with western Europe being the most expensive in the world.

    But I am also not aware of Sky ever changing their standards or codecs, which presumably could require them to replace some if not all existing Sky HD boxes, to reduce bandwidth. The only change I know of was BBC HD, as was, switching from DVB-S as used by SD channels to DVB-S2 as used by other HD ones.

    And I would be surprised if any advancements by Astra or Eutelsat to provide more transponder capacity would see them reduce costs. They have a captive market –*it is not like UKTV can say they will use a different orbital position instead when all dishes point to 28.2/28.5°E –*and enough increasing demand to fill it.

    As you know otherwise I am interested to find out more.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mavreela wrote: »
    Could you be more specific please.

    I admit I have no idea what the price is now or when HD started, but at least a few years ago the average cost of renting transponder capacity was increasing, with western Europe being the most expensive in the world.

    But I am also not aware of Sky ever changing their standards or codecs, which presumably could require them to replace some if not all existing Sky HD boxes, to reduce bandwidth. The only change I know of was BBC HD, as was, switching from DVB-S as used by SD channels to DVB-S2 as used by other HD ones.

    And I would be surprised if any advancements by Astra or Eutelsat to provide more transponder capacity would see them reduce costs. They have a captive market –*it is not like UKTV can say they will use a different orbital position instead when all dishes point to 28.2/28.5°E –*and enough increasing demand to fill it.

    As you know otherwise I am interested to find out more.

    I know this is a freeview point but it could equally apply here, freeview HD started out with very few HD channels (probably 2-3), fitting on a DVB-T2 MUX at about 40Mbps, roughly the same capacity as a DVB-S2 sat transponder.
    The BBC started to use improved encoders to get 5 HD channels on BBC B MUX and this year the new COM 7 can now get the equivalent of 7 HD channels on what is a DVB-T2 MUX (they actually have 6 HD channels and 2 SD channels with space for 1-2 more SD channels).
    This is using the same MPEG4/AVC DVB-T2 (or DVB-S2) tech standards which is recognised by all current HD capable DTT and Dsat receivers, now its true that HEVC would improve that more on a DVB-T2 or DVB-S2 MUX/TP, but for now improvements in MPEG4/AVC is good enough as it can be used now!
    Also if Astra or Eutelsat would let broadcasters reduce their forward error correction for UK beam TPs they could also fit more on there too!

    Both of these things will reduce costs of broadcasting HD channels and if the process of getting people to use HD receivers is sped up (Sky Im looking at you for Dsat and Vince Cable for making Freeview HD the only freeview standard), then broadcasters like the BBC could drop their SD variations saving a fair amount of money!
Sign In or Register to comment.