So howley20 can you explain why in this thread you said:
"i would rather Tiscali (talktalk) would concentrate on maybe putting even more quality content onto the service rather than having to invest alot of money into a technology (HD) that doesnt really represent true HD in peoples homes"
But in the other thread you started you said:
"My question is, can you get BBC HD without having to pay for a subscription to Sky (the only available thing for me) and if thats the case, why am i paying my TV License for the BBC to invest money into a technology that i cant get access too?"
Surely as a license fee payer you would like to see BBC HD on tiscali:D
Why are you lying? The post you quoted is from a thread I started that was PRAISING ITV HD and saying the quality was as good as BBC HD.
The actual post was saying I had seen a deinterlacing problem on a previous football match which made white lines jagged.
How does any of that contradict what I said in this thread? Why did you dishonestly miss out the fact that I had started the other thread praising ITV HD?
It seems that you are somehow determined to be right and even resorted to searching my old posts to try and find the slightest contradiction, which you failed to do.
I stand by everything I have said in this thread and you have not been able to successfully challenge any of it.
Indeed, I am unable to fathom what your argument is. It seems you don't like HD because some people can't get it. Bizarre.
As you took the liberty of looking through my posts, I had a look through yours. You started a thread asking the following:
"The thing is, i noticed that the BBC have been saying that you can now watch certain programs in HD, but yet it is only available from Cable or Sky but not Freeview which is what i have.
My question is, can you get BBC HD without having to pay for a subscription to Sky (the only available thing for me) and if thats the case, why am i paying my TV License for the BBC to invest money into a technology that i cant get access too?
Please correct me if im wrong on this.
regards
mike"
You were clearly very keen to get HD:rolleyes:
Then you said:
"will these freesat boxes be able to record like my Humax can?
Also do you know how much something like that would cost to buy and install or is that info not available yet?
Thankyou for your replys.
regards
mike "
So you were considering buying freesat before it even came out, just to get BBCHD!!:D
Then you said:
"Brilliant ill be keeping my eye out next year for a Freesat box that can record, thankyou very much for the info. "
I think that says it all. :D:D:D
Why are you saying im lying did you not write that post about the deinterlacing problems? does that not say that their where picture quality problems? You started off the post asking if ITV HD had increased the bitrate or changed encoder as the quality had improved far better than the recent martin clunes series, you then go on to discuss the picture problems you have experienced with a few football matches that you have watched, the whole arguement i was making there is that HD isnt without its issues, but yet you firmly deny that their are any. Its strange.
Regarding my previous posts, i have never said at any point that i wouldnt want HD, i said i wouldnt want Tiscali to invest heavily into a HD technology, charge everyone for the privilege and then have no decent content to put on tv as they have blown their budget on HD.
The reason why i asked about Freesat HD in the posts you have mentioned, was due to the fact that i was totally convinced that i should buy it, at the time of posting i had a humax PVR which looked shocking on a CRT tv due to the poor signal i received, i wanted to invest in a new fandabidosy LCD but was seriously concerned about a poor picture quality, so obviously im going to research into HD as it promises improved picture quality, after doing plenty of research and finding that the majority of people where having major issues with both sky HD and Freesat HD with either picture quality or buggy hardware, i decided to invest heavily in a LCD that could handle a poor SD transmission, rather than investing heavily into a freesat HD box, which im glad i did.
You seem to have this strange notion that i think people shouldnt have HD, i think you need to get over yourself slightly on this point as i have never stated that HD isnt the future and i havent stated that people shouldnt have access to it, my whole point and please read this slowly as you obviously have trouble understanding it.......
TISCALI WILL HAVE TO CHARGE THE CUSTOMER LOTS OF PENNIES TO FUND HD INVESTMENT, WHY NOT INVEST LESS MONEY IN DECENT ON DEMAND PROGRAMMES RATHER THAN COMPANYS SUCH AS ITV PUTTING 'TRIPE' AS YOU CALL IT LIKE BEETHOVEN THE 4TH ON OUR TV SCREENS IN HD.
please just take a minute to absorb that and see if you can understand it, you have disagreed with everyones opinion on this post, why not try and see someone elses views, and i agree with you that HD is better than SD.
You enjoy your Freesat HD, i have nothing against HD either through freesat, sky or virgin or whoever, i hope that your HD gets better and better as new and improved encoders are used, i hope that your HD content gets vastly improved so you can really be blown away by an amazing picture with plenty of content to watch.
But please do not say im lying when im not, its extremely offensive.
So howley20 can you explain why in this thread you said:
"i would rather Tiscali (talktalk) would concentrate on maybe putting even more quality content onto the service rather than having to invest alot of money into a technology (HD) that doesnt really represent true HD in peoples homes"
But in the other thread you started you said:
"My question is, can you get BBC HD without having to pay for a subscription to Sky (the only available thing for me) and if thats the case, why am i paying my TV License for the BBC to invest money into a technology that i cant get access too?"
Surely as a license fee payer you would like to see BBC HD on tiscali:D
How do you reconcile the above 2 statements howley20?
Also, why did you say SKY was the only pay service you had access to, had you not heard of tiscali then?
How do you reconcile the above 2 statements howley20?
Also, why did you say SKY was the only pay service you had access to, had you not heard of tiscali then?
Tiscali was not available in my area up until february 2009 i think it was around then, and before that i had never ever heard of em, poor advertising me thinks. i would never have realised they where available if i hadnt done the isp check on moneysupermarket i think it was.
I left sky due to the terrible service and picture quality that i was receiving from em, i decided against freesat as it seems like your on your own if something goes a bit wrong, no technical support as such apart from the box manufacturer, i would love to have BBC HD dont get me wrong, i just dont wont to be charged for something that like you say is free on freesat. Especially when the picture quality even in HD will have its issues.
My concerns are:
COST: will they increase the prices?
QUALITY: will their be issues with sending the HD down ya line, just like there are issues now with SD blocking and breaking up?
CONTENT: will they have invested all their pennys in upgrading and moving everyone onto talk talks 16mb network and not have much left over to pay warner TV or C1 etc to update their programming that often.
And yes i do think its wrong that every TV license payer technically pays for the BBC to invest in HD, but then not everyone can access it. Its going to turn into a two tier service just like it is with broadband access and how we will have to put £6 a year into a kitty to help the situation (cheers labour). Totally different subject but i think thats unfair, they say prices have come down loads lately so therefore they wanna charge extra, what about all these chuffing years ive been paying ridiculous amounts for seperate BB, TV, line rental and calls.
Anyways best get off my iphone has just updated to 3.0, its sad but im well excited!
Tiscali was not available in my area up until february 2009 i think it was around then, and before that i had never ever heard of em, poor advertising me thinks. i would never have realised they where available if i hadnt done the isp check on moneysupermarket i think it was.
I left sky due to the terrible service and picture quality that i was receiving from em, i decided against freesat as it seems like your on your own if something goes a bit wrong, no technical support as such apart from the box manufacturer, i would love to have BBC HD dont get me wrong, i just dont wont to be charged for something that like you say is free on freesat. Especially when the picture quality even in HD will have its issues.
My concerns are:
COST: will they increase the prices?
QUALITY: will their be issues with sending the HD down ya line, just like there are issues now with SD blocking and breaking up?
CONTENT: will they have invested all their pennys in upgrading and moving everyone onto talk talks 16mb network and not have much left over to pay warner TV or C1 etc to update their programming that often.
And yes i do think its wrong that every TV license payer technically pays for the BBC to invest in HD, but then not everyone can access it. Its going to turn into a two tier service just like it is with broadband access and how we will have to put £6 a year into a kitty to help the situation (cheers labour). Totally different subject but i think thats unfair, they say prices have come down loads lately so therefore they wanna charge extra, what about all these chuffing years ive been paying ridiculous amounts for seperate BB, TV, line rental and calls.
Anyways best get off my iphone has just updated to 3.0, its sad but im well excited!
The BBC has always had that problem though. Before freeview their digital channels were only available on SKY, cable and ondigital and I was peeved that as I didn't have any of those services then I couldn't get the extra BBC channels and was still paying a license.
I don't think we can really complain about a Tiscali price increase. We have had it really good and been undercharged for a long time. £24.99 for line rental, calls, unlimited 8mb broadband and a TV service is a ridiculously low price. They could never operate that at a profit and indeed tiscali has made a loss every year since it started in 1998. Tiscali have never made a profit., and if they are going to they need to put prices up and advertise the TV service like mad. I personally would not mind a price increase of say £5 a month if it meant faster broadband and HD services.
The BBC has always had that problem though. Before freeview their digital channels were only available on SKY, cable and ondigital and I was peeved that as I didn't have any of those services then I couldn't get the extra BBC channels and was still paying a license.
I don't think we can really complain about a Tiscali price increase. We have had it really good and been undercharged for a long time. £24.99 for line rental, calls, unlimited 8mb broadband and a TV service is a ridiculously low price. They could never operate that at a profit and indeed tiscali has made a loss every year since it started in 1998. Tiscali have never made a profit., and if they are going to they need to put prices up and advertise the TV service like mad. I personally would not mind a price increase of say £5 a month if it meant faster broadband and HD services.
I never understood how they could charge so little for so much, it just doesnt make sense, i mean i was paying £18 for BB from Be*, then you have line rental of £12.50 from BT, then if you had basic package from sky is it £16 a month or something, thats like £46, to be honest with ya i didnt really think that the service was going to be any good due to it being so cheap, i kept saying to myself their has to be a catch?
and by the way iphone 3.0, major let down, i cant see no difference except i have mms? what was all that hype about?
they need to... advertise the TV service like mad.
I think the problem is that they couldn't do a TV campaign because they'd be advertising to millions of people who couldn't possibly get TTV Availability is by phone exchange, not by TV region.
I learned of Homechoice via a leaflet dropped in my postbox and it was a miracle I didn't throw it straight in the bin without reading it - that's what most people do.
I think the problem is that they couldn't do a TV campaign because they'd be advertising to millions of people who couldn't possibly get TTV Availability is by phone exchange, not by TV region.
I learned of Homechoice via a leaflet dropped in my postbox and it was a miracle I didn't throw it straight in the bin without reading it - that's what most people do.
parthena
But virgin do campaigns on the TV for cable and most people can't get that. All they need to do is put some writing on the advert saying "subject to availability, please go to tiscali.co.uk/xxxxxxxx to see if the service is available in your area"
I think 50% can get Virgin, far more than Tiscali.
parthena
i wonder if the merger with talktalk will increase their coverage? actually it would be quite interesting to know what coverage tiscali actually have now.
I agree that they need to advertise on tv, they used to advertise didnt they? but their adverts never concentrated on the service, they where just stupid tongue in cheek adverts, what they need to advertise are things like sky 1, warner tv, movies now, vmx they could totally wipe the floor with other providers.
Also when i checked for ISP providers for my area and it suggested Tiscali for me, i went onto tiscalis website, (nip and have a look now)it just looked like a very messed up yahoo search engine, i took me forever to get to the product pages, why dont they have the important info on the main page, hook people in the moment they look at the site, not make em work for the info, people will just give up.
They should have a big advert saying TV, Talk and 8Mb broadband for only £19.99, that way the people can click on the pic and get taken straight to the packages.
i wonder if the merger with talktalk will increase their coverage? actually it would be quite interesting to know what coverage tiscali actually have now.
I agree that they need to advertise on tv, they used to advertise didnt they? but their adverts never concentrated on the service, they where just stupid tongue in cheek adverts, what they need to advertise are things like sky 1, warner tv, movies now, vmx they could totally wipe the floor with other providers.
Also when i checked for ISP providers for my area and it suggested Tiscali for me, i went onto tiscalis website, (nip and have a look now)it just looked like a very messed up yahoo search engine, i took me forever to get to the product pages, why dont they have the important info on the main page, hook people in the moment they look at the site, not make em work for the info, people will just give up.
They should have a big advert saying TV, Talk and 8Mb broadband for only £19.99, that way the people can click on the pic and get taken straight to the packages.
If Tiscali did a TV advert, all they would have to say is "Pay TV through your phoneline, NO DISH, NO CABLE, YOU DONT EVEN NEED AN AERIAL". It would sell like hotcakes.
I think they might have a problem if they mentioned sky channels. SKY basic channels are actually cheaper on tiscali than on sky. SKY would probably pull their channels if tiscali advertised on that basis.
* London
* Birmingham
* Liverpool
* Leicester
* Wolverhampton
* Salford
* Stevenage
* Milton Keynes
* Warrington
The company has announced plans for a UK-wide service in the future.
parthena
I have seen these areas quoted before. Thing to remember is that even in these areas that its not available at every exchange. I live on the other side of the water from liverpool, and get Tiscali on my exchange (Rock Ferry - LVROC) but further up the road those on Bebington exchange could not get it.
Reminds me of NTL around here back in the day. I think a big push would increase subs no end. Best service i've had. Love the VoD stuff, although i would like to see a few more channels like the rest of the UKTV services and The Virgin Media Television (Flextech) Channels.
I would rather see Tiscali improve service quality (as others have said) and introduce ADSL2+.
I think that HD VOD is a good idea however this would be similar to Top Up TV, downloads overnight to bring content.
I would love the TV service, as it isn't a rip off like Sky, and if they introduced the package along with Upto 16 or 24meg broadband it would sell like mad.
It is the only option that makes sense. There is such a disparity in various factors, like people's line speed, availability of TTV in exchanges, DTT coverage, and the problem of HD DTT tuners not being available. This is tiscali's only option at the moment until they increase coverage and get ADSL2+.
I do very much welcome it though and it will almost certainly give me the push I need to get the + box.
For those interested in HD via TTV, if the content was charged at £2 to £3 per program, would you still upgrade?
No I would not, I can't get SKY and wouldn't even if I could.I refuse to have HD dangled in my face like a carrot on a stick with a monthly price tag.I'm quite happy to wait and see what develops with Freeview in the future.If nothing comes there I'll be quite happy to watch the odd Blueray movie and play HD games on the ps3.Life's been ok up to now with bog standard TV if I don't get HD TV I think I'll survive.
For those interested in HD via TTV, if the content was charged at £2 to £3 per program, would you still upgrade?
Why would they do that?
Currently, the entertainment mix has loads of VOD for a fixed price of £6 a month.
If it goes HD, what makes you think they will change that type of pricing structure? They would probably make it £6 for SD entertainment mix and £12 for HD entertainment mix, or something like that.
We currently pay about £3 for a single film download on movies now anyway, and that is SD.
If it goes HD, what makes you think they will change that type of pricing structure?
Someone has to foot the cost of the bandwidth to download the HD content to the STB, HD content filesize is larger than SD so someone has to foot the bill for the extra cost of the download, do you think Tiscali will want to loose money?, lets not forget there is no such think as unlimited.
Someone has to foot the cost of the bandwidth to download the HD content to the STB, HD content filesize is larger than SD so someone has to foot the bill for the extra cost of the download, do you think Tiscali will want to loose money?, lets not forget there is no such think as unlimited.
Well I have often had tiscali TV on all day downloading TV content at presumably 2.5 to 3 Mb/s. Thats still a lot of bandwidth and can often be for 8 hours a day and yet they still only charge me £2 PER MONTH for the basic variety pack and £6 for the entertainment extra.
Why would they abandon such a pricing structure for HD, surely they would just increase the monthly payment to pay for the extra bandwidth?
With regard to your bolded question, Tiscali have never made a profit in the entire 11 years of their existence. They always make a loss and I see no reason to think that will change.
Well I have often had tiscali TV on all day downloading TV content at presumably 2.5 to 3 Mb/s. Thats still a lot of bandwidth and can often be for 8 hours a day and yet they still only charge me £2 PER MONTH for the basic variety pack and £6 for the entertainment extra.
Why would they abandon such a pricing structure for HD, surely they would just increase the monthly payment to pay for the extra bandwidth?
With regard to your bolded question, Tiscali have never made a profit in the entire 11 years of their existence. They always make a loss and I see no reason to think that will change.
Lets not forget Tiscali have new owners now, will their owners want to keep a loosing profit company going? I think not, but thats just my thought, I think prices will go up so they can reach break-even and start making profit.
Lets not forget Tiscali have new owners now, will their owners want to keep a loosing profit company going? I think not, but thats just my thought, I think prices will go up so they can reach break-even and start making profit.
I agree with you that prices will go up.
Where I disagree is that I don't think they will charge HD on a per programme basis.
Where I disagree is that I don't think they will charge HD on a per programme basis.
Lets say "for example" if a HD program cost (in bandwidth) £2 to download to a STB + lets say it cost £1.50 "for example" for the program so thats £3.50 (for example), I don't see how Tiscali could offer a service of unlimited (for example) downloads of HD programmes to a STB for lets say £12 a month? thats why I suggested it might be PPD (Pay-Per-Download).
Comments
"i would rather Tiscali (talktalk) would concentrate on maybe putting even more quality content onto the service rather than having to invest alot of money into a technology (HD) that doesnt really represent true HD in peoples homes"
But in the other thread you started you said:
"My question is, can you get BBC HD without having to pay for a subscription to Sky (the only available thing for me) and if thats the case, why am i paying my TV License for the BBC to invest money into a technology that i cant get access too?"
Surely as a license fee payer you would like to see BBC HD on tiscali:D
Why are you saying im lying did you not write that post about the deinterlacing problems? does that not say that their where picture quality problems? You started off the post asking if ITV HD had increased the bitrate or changed encoder as the quality had improved far better than the recent martin clunes series, you then go on to discuss the picture problems you have experienced with a few football matches that you have watched, the whole arguement i was making there is that HD isnt without its issues, but yet you firmly deny that their are any. Its strange.
Regarding my previous posts, i have never said at any point that i wouldnt want HD, i said i wouldnt want Tiscali to invest heavily into a HD technology, charge everyone for the privilege and then have no decent content to put on tv as they have blown their budget on HD.
The reason why i asked about Freesat HD in the posts you have mentioned, was due to the fact that i was totally convinced that i should buy it, at the time of posting i had a humax PVR which looked shocking on a CRT tv due to the poor signal i received, i wanted to invest in a new fandabidosy LCD but was seriously concerned about a poor picture quality, so obviously im going to research into HD as it promises improved picture quality, after doing plenty of research and finding that the majority of people where having major issues with both sky HD and Freesat HD with either picture quality or buggy hardware, i decided to invest heavily in a LCD that could handle a poor SD transmission, rather than investing heavily into a freesat HD box, which im glad i did.
You seem to have this strange notion that i think people shouldnt have HD, i think you need to get over yourself slightly on this point as i have never stated that HD isnt the future and i havent stated that people shouldnt have access to it, my whole point and please read this slowly as you obviously have trouble understanding it.......
TISCALI WILL HAVE TO CHARGE THE CUSTOMER LOTS OF PENNIES TO FUND HD INVESTMENT, WHY NOT INVEST LESS MONEY IN DECENT ON DEMAND PROGRAMMES RATHER THAN COMPANYS SUCH AS ITV PUTTING 'TRIPE' AS YOU CALL IT LIKE BEETHOVEN THE 4TH ON OUR TV SCREENS IN HD.
please just take a minute to absorb that and see if you can understand it, you have disagreed with everyones opinion on this post, why not try and see someone elses views, and i agree with you that HD is better than SD.
You enjoy your Freesat HD, i have nothing against HD either through freesat, sky or virgin or whoever, i hope that your HD gets better and better as new and improved encoders are used, i hope that your HD content gets vastly improved so you can really be blown away by an amazing picture with plenty of content to watch.
But please do not say im lying when im not, its extremely offensive.
How do you reconcile the above 2 statements howley20?
Also, why did you say SKY was the only pay service you had access to, had you not heard of tiscali then?
Tiscali was not available in my area up until february 2009 i think it was around then, and before that i had never ever heard of em, poor advertising me thinks. i would never have realised they where available if i hadnt done the isp check on moneysupermarket i think it was.
I left sky due to the terrible service and picture quality that i was receiving from em, i decided against freesat as it seems like your on your own if something goes a bit wrong, no technical support as such apart from the box manufacturer, i would love to have BBC HD dont get me wrong, i just dont wont to be charged for something that like you say is free on freesat. Especially when the picture quality even in HD will have its issues.
My concerns are:
COST: will they increase the prices?
QUALITY: will their be issues with sending the HD down ya line, just like there are issues now with SD blocking and breaking up?
CONTENT: will they have invested all their pennys in upgrading and moving everyone onto talk talks 16mb network and not have much left over to pay warner TV or C1 etc to update their programming that often.
And yes i do think its wrong that every TV license payer technically pays for the BBC to invest in HD, but then not everyone can access it. Its going to turn into a two tier service just like it is with broadband access and how we will have to put £6 a year into a kitty to help the situation (cheers labour). Totally different subject but i think thats unfair, they say prices have come down loads lately so therefore they wanna charge extra, what about all these chuffing years ive been paying ridiculous amounts for seperate BB, TV, line rental and calls.
Anyways best get off my iphone has just updated to 3.0, its sad but im well excited!
The BBC has always had that problem though. Before freeview their digital channels were only available on SKY, cable and ondigital and I was peeved that as I didn't have any of those services then I couldn't get the extra BBC channels and was still paying a license.
I don't think we can really complain about a Tiscali price increase. We have had it really good and been undercharged for a long time. £24.99 for line rental, calls, unlimited 8mb broadband and a TV service is a ridiculously low price. They could never operate that at a profit and indeed tiscali has made a loss every year since it started in 1998. Tiscali have never made a profit., and if they are going to they need to put prices up and advertise the TV service like mad. I personally would not mind a price increase of say £5 a month if it meant faster broadband and HD services.
I never understood how they could charge so little for so much, it just doesnt make sense, i mean i was paying £18 for BB from Be*, then you have line rental of £12.50 from BT, then if you had basic package from sky is it £16 a month or something, thats like £46, to be honest with ya i didnt really think that the service was going to be any good due to it being so cheap, i kept saying to myself their has to be a catch?
and by the way iphone 3.0, major let down, i cant see no difference except i have mms? what was all that hype about?
I think the problem is that they couldn't do a TV campaign because they'd be advertising to millions of people who couldn't possibly get TTV
I learned of Homechoice via a leaflet dropped in my postbox and it was a miracle I didn't throw it straight in the bin without reading it - that's what most people do.
parthena
But virgin do campaigns on the TV for cable and most people can't get that. All they need to do is put some writing on the advert saying "subject to availability, please go to tiscali.co.uk/xxxxxxxx to see if the service is available in your area"
parthena
i wonder if the merger with talktalk will increase their coverage? actually it would be quite interesting to know what coverage tiscali actually have now.
I agree that they need to advertise on tv, they used to advertise didnt they? but their adverts never concentrated on the service, they where just stupid tongue in cheek adverts, what they need to advertise are things like sky 1, warner tv, movies now, vmx they could totally wipe the floor with other providers.
Also when i checked for ISP providers for my area and it suggested Tiscali for me, i went onto tiscalis website, (nip and have a look now)it just looked like a very messed up yahoo search engine, i took me forever to get to the product pages, why dont they have the important info on the main page, hook people in the moment they look at the site, not make em work for the info, people will just give up.
They should have a big advert saying TV, Talk and 8Mb broadband for only £19.99, that way the people can click on the pic and get taken straight to the packages.
I thought tiscali had 10 million homes covered, is that wrong?
I think 10 million out of 25 million homes is enough to go for a tv advertising campaign.
If Tiscali did a TV advert, all they would have to say is "Pay TV through your phoneline, NO DISH, NO CABLE, YOU DONT EVEN NEED AN AERIAL". It would sell like hotcakes.
I think they might have a problem if they mentioned sky channels. SKY basic channels are actually cheaper on tiscali than on sky. SKY would probably pull their channels if tiscali advertised on that basis.
Who's willing to phone CS and ask?
I found this on the Radio & Telly site:
* London
* Birmingham
* Liverpool
* Leicester
* Wolverhampton
* Salford
* Stevenage
* Milton Keynes
* Warrington
The company has announced plans for a UK-wide service in the future.
parthena
I have seen these areas quoted before. Thing to remember is that even in these areas that its not available at every exchange. I live on the other side of the water from liverpool, and get Tiscali on my exchange (Rock Ferry - LVROC) but further up the road those on Bebington exchange could not get it.
Reminds me of NTL around here back in the day. I think a big push would increase subs no end. Best service i've had. Love the VoD stuff, although i would like to see a few more channels like the rest of the UKTV services and The Virgin Media Television (Flextech) Channels.
We'll wait and see!
Mike
Link
I think that HD VOD is a good idea however this would be similar to Top Up TV, downloads overnight to bring content.
I would love the TV service, as it isn't a rip off like Sky, and if they introduced the package along with Upto 16 or 24meg broadband it would sell like mad.
We will see what the coming months bring
It is the only option that makes sense. There is such a disparity in various factors, like people's line speed, availability of TTV in exchanges, DTT coverage, and the problem of HD DTT tuners not being available. This is tiscali's only option at the moment until they increase coverage and get ADSL2+.
I do very much welcome it though and it will almost certainly give me the push I need to get the + box.
Why would they do that?
Currently, the entertainment mix has loads of VOD for a fixed price of £6 a month.
If it goes HD, what makes you think they will change that type of pricing structure? They would probably make it £6 for SD entertainment mix and £12 for HD entertainment mix, or something like that.
We currently pay about £3 for a single film download on movies now anyway, and that is SD.
Someone has to foot the cost of the bandwidth to download the HD content to the STB, HD content filesize is larger than SD so someone has to foot the bill for the extra cost of the download, do you think Tiscali will want to loose money?, lets not forget there is no such think as unlimited.
Well I have often had tiscali TV on all day downloading TV content at presumably 2.5 to 3 Mb/s. Thats still a lot of bandwidth and can often be for 8 hours a day and yet they still only charge me £2 PER MONTH for the basic variety pack and £6 for the entertainment extra.
Why would they abandon such a pricing structure for HD, surely they would just increase the monthly payment to pay for the extra bandwidth?
With regard to your bolded question, Tiscali have never made a profit in the entire 11 years of their existence. They always make a loss and I see no reason to think that will change.
Lets not forget Tiscali have new owners now, will their owners want to keep a loosing profit company going? I think not, but thats just my thought, I think prices will go up so they can reach break-even and start making profit.
I agree with you that prices will go up.
Where I disagree is that I don't think they will charge HD on a per programme basis.
Thank You
Lets say "for example" if a HD program cost (in bandwidth) £2 to download to a STB + lets say it cost £1.50 "for example" for the program so thats £3.50 (for example), I don't see how Tiscali could offer a service of unlimited (for example) downloads of HD programmes to a STB for lets say £12 a month? thats why I suggested it might be PPD (Pay-Per-Download).