@derek500 You seem to be in full on gloat mode in here, wouldn't you feel more at home in the SkyHD forum? Here you come over as a troll who is basically here to rub the fact you have access to a load of channels HD in the face of people who cant afford (Or just wont) to pay for them.
Sorry. But when I've been saying for a long time that these channels wouldn't come to Freesat and continually being told they would, it's satisfying to be proved right.
Not gloating, but I do get a lot of unwarranted insults on here, something that I never hand out.
Sorry. But when I've been saying for a long time that these channels wouldn't come to Freesat and continually being told they would, it's satisfying to be proved right.
Not gloating, but I do get a lot of unwarranted insults on here, something that I never hand out.
No you just start baiting and gloating threads like this on the Freesat forum when you are a fully paid up Sky shareholder.
You couldn't wait to rush here and start a gloating thread and them make claims that your actions are sweet and innocent.
All anyone needs to do is look at your posting history to see exactly what you are always upto on the Freesat forum.
If you look at it the other way round, Sky have no incentive to stop the HD subscription.
Depends on Virgin I think, if they can continue to increase the number of HD channels and get most of the important HD channels on their service without a charge Sky will have to drop the HD charge eventually.
Depends on Virgin I think, if they can continue to increase the number of HD channels and get most of the important HD channels on their service without a charge Sky will have to drop the HD charge eventually.
VM have a much smaller number of HD channels than Sky, so they can't justify an HD subscription - and they have continually advertised as no HD subscription as well.
I don't see as VM's HD offering in any way concerns Sky, who keep adding more HD channels for the same subscription charge, making it better and better value.
Not that I would pay Sky an HD subscription though!
But it's yet another reason why Sky are in profit, and VM in massive debt.
VM do of course have lower costs for providing HD channels, as they own the infrastructure used - so their 'broadcasting' costs aren't increased by HD. But I expect it's far less significant than paying for the HD content - like many here, I'd love to know how much VM paid Film4 to be exclusive for this long (it must have been a LOT!!).
I dont think anything will happen any time soon TBH (Although I would love to be proved wrong on that ), but I do think as long as Channel4 stay committed to FTA broadcasting their HD channels will be FTA eventually. Over time Virgin will add more HD channels and there could come a point were Virgin offer a large enough package of HD content to take away Skys claims that HD is still a premium product and warrants an additional fee.
You don't think you've just realised a major reason why Sky charge an HD subscription?
If you look at it the other way round, Sky have no incentive to stop the HD subscription.
I agree with that. There is no way VM can offer anywhere near the number of HD channels that Sky do and the gap is just going to get bigger with Sky's strategy of offering 'incentives' for channels to launch HD versions. HD subscriptions are here for the foreseeable future I'm afraid.
Over time Virgin will add more HD channels and there could come a point were Virgin offer a large enough package of HD content to take away Skys claims that HD is still a premium product and warrants an additional fee.
I seriously doubt that will ever happen - why would VM, who are already losing money, deliberately increase their losses?.
VM will either keep only a limited range of HD channels, or introduce an HD subscription (possibly in another guise - such as increasing all subscriptions to cover extra HD channels).
Unfortunately VM are stuck between a rock and a hard place, their far higher infrastructure costs mean that Sky can operate at a profit where as VM at a similar subscription rate run at a loss.
It's difficult to know what VM can do?, the whole idea of cable TV was badly flawed - but of course VM didn't actually create it, they just took over the already failing companies.
Over time Virgin will add more HD channels and there could come a point were Virgin offer a large enough package of HD content to take away Skys claims that HD is still a premium product and warrants an additional fee.
Sky can claim anything to justify their HD tax but in reality HD is not premium at all, as both freeview & freesat, not only offer Free HD, but also offer recorders that can record free HD channels.
HD is not premium in this day and age. Gone the days one would need Sky or Virgin sub to watch HD.
The contents of some of the HD channels might/ could be premium but HD itself is not premium at all. Sky, ITV & CH4 delude themselves if they really believe that people would sign up to pay for ITV3 HD or More HD.
Yeah, the HD = premium scam will continue as long as Sky think they can milk it - much like the record companies milked the CD format for music.
It's a shame to see a public service broadcaster wholly owned by the public deny its owners access to its services, unless they finance Sky.
I wonder what the economic realities behind the decision were. Ultimately I dare say "economic" decisions could be used to justify closing many or all FTA Channel 4 channels. That doesn't mean it'd be justifiable on other grounds.
Having said that, More4 is a pretty crappy channel anyway - just repeats with the occasional premiere, that eventually gets shown on Channel4 (HD). Same with Film4 - there's nothing exclusive. If a movie were to premiere on Film4, chances are, I've already seen it through other mediums - and in HD - and if I want to watch it again in high def, it'll be on Channel4 HD shortly.
Still, it's bad to see a publicly owned PSB siding with the devil.
Sky can claim anything to justify their HD tax but in reality HD is not premium at all, as both freeview & freesat, not only offer Free HD, but also offer recorders that can record free HD channels.
HD is not premium in this day and age. Gone the days one would need Sky or Virgin sub to watch HD.
The contents of some of the HD channels might/ could be premium but HD itself is not premium at all. Sky, ITV & CH4 delude themselves if they really believe that people would sign up to pay for ITV3 HD or More HD.
Am I missing something here? I don't have movies or sports from Sky, just entertainment & documentaries. I'm already paying for the SD variants of the channels I get & should I get Sky HD it would render the SD versions a waste of space & still have to pay for them. I would gladly pay Sky some extra premium for the HD versions but not at a cost of €15 pm, A premium of over 50% based on the current level of my existing package. Perhaps they should consider some sort of scaled HD premium based on the customers existing subscription package.
Am I missing something here? I don't have movies or sports from Sky, just entertainment & documentaries. I'm already paying for the SD variants of the channels I get & should I get Sky HD it would render the SD versions a waste of space & still have to pay for them. I would gladly pay Sky some extra premium for the HD versions but not at a cost of €15 pm, A premium of over 50% based on the current level of my existing package. Perhaps they should consider some sort of scaled HD premium based on the customers existing subscription package.
Agreed! It's one fee no matter what you get.
And people keep advertising it as well £10.25 is so little to pay for XX HD channels, but you only get that amount if, yes you've guessed it, pay Sky even move money first to get the Sports and Movie packs. :rolleyes:
So many people are having to stump up £10.25 for less HD channels than others. Very typical of sky to charge unfairly and some get and some don't for the same fee.
Sorry. But when I've been saying for a long time that these channels wouldn't come to Freesat and continually being told they would, it's satisfying to be proved right.
Not gloating, but I do get a lot of unwarranted insults on here, something that I never hand out.
Comments
Sorry. But when I've been saying for a long time that these channels wouldn't come to Freesat and continually being told they would, it's satisfying to be proved right.
Not gloating, but I do get a lot of unwarranted insults on here, something that I never hand out.
You don't think you've just realised a major reason why Sky charge an HD subscription?
If you look at it the other way round, Sky have no incentive to stop the HD subscription.
No you just start baiting and gloating threads like this on the Freesat forum when you are a fully paid up Sky shareholder.
You couldn't wait to rush here and start a gloating thread and them make claims that your actions are sweet and innocent.
All anyone needs to do is look at your posting history to see exactly what you are always upto on the Freesat forum.
You abuse this place for your financial gain.
Depends on Virgin I think, if they can continue to increase the number of HD channels and get most of the important HD channels on their service without a charge Sky will have to drop the HD charge eventually.
VM have a much smaller number of HD channels than Sky, so they can't justify an HD subscription - and they have continually advertised as no HD subscription as well.
I don't see as VM's HD offering in any way concerns Sky, who keep adding more HD channels for the same subscription charge, making it better and better value.
Not that I would pay Sky an HD subscription though!
But it's yet another reason why Sky are in profit, and VM in massive debt.
VM do of course have lower costs for providing HD channels, as they own the infrastructure used - so their 'broadcasting' costs aren't increased by HD. But I expect it's far less significant than paying for the HD content - like many here, I'd love to know how much VM paid Film4 to be exclusive for this long
Yes you do and no you do not:)
I seriously doubt that will ever happen - why would VM, who are already losing money, deliberately increase their losses?.
VM will either keep only a limited range of HD channels, or introduce an HD subscription (possibly in another guise - such as increasing all subscriptions to cover extra HD channels).
Unfortunately VM are stuck between a rock and a hard place, their far higher infrastructure costs mean that Sky can operate at a profit where as VM at a similar subscription rate run at a loss.
It's difficult to know what VM can do?, the whole idea of cable TV was badly flawed - but of course VM didn't actually create it, they just took over the already failing companies.
Sky can claim anything to justify their HD tax but in reality HD is not premium at all, as both freeview & freesat, not only offer Free HD, but also offer recorders that can record free HD channels.
HD is not premium in this day and age. Gone the days one would need Sky or Virgin sub to watch HD.
The contents of some of the HD channels might/ could be premium but HD itself is not premium at all. Sky, ITV & CH4 delude themselves if they really believe that people would sign up to pay for ITV3 HD or More HD.
It's a shame to see a public service broadcaster wholly owned by the public deny its owners access to its services, unless they finance Sky.
I wonder what the economic realities behind the decision were. Ultimately I dare say "economic" decisions could be used to justify closing many or all FTA Channel 4 channels. That doesn't mean it'd be justifiable on other grounds.
Having said that, More4 is a pretty crappy channel anyway - just repeats with the occasional premiere, that eventually gets shown on Channel4 (HD). Same with Film4 - there's nothing exclusive. If a movie were to premiere on Film4, chances are, I've already seen it through other mediums - and in HD - and if I want to watch it again in high def, it'll be on Channel4 HD shortly.
Still, it's bad to see a publicly owned PSB siding with the devil.
As do Sky - you get the exact same free HD channels on Sky as well, and sometimes an odd extra one.
You can hardly claim a small number of free HD channels means a large number isn't a premium product.
It costs considerably more, all down the line, do you imagine they just pull money out of a magic pot to pay for it?.
sky do yes
It comes with providing a decent service at a decent price!
Perhaps YOU might think so, but over 10 million subscribers don't.
Not just me,If you read Digital Spy and other forums, and many of sky subscibers are not happy with sky and are looking for an alternative TV platform
Of course the Digital Spy forums represent the vast majority of Sky subscribers
I seem to remember saying when there was talk of E4-HD etc going FTA that I'd believe it when I see it and I've been proven right.
More than happy with the SD quality of the CH4 suite on satellite, so nothings changed as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed! It's one fee no matter what you get.
And people keep advertising it as well £10.25 is so little to pay for XX HD channels, but you only get that amount if, yes you've guessed it, pay Sky even move money first to get the Sports and Movie packs. :rolleyes:
So many people are having to stump up £10.25 for less HD channels than others. Very typical of sky to charge unfairly and some get and some don't for the same fee.
Derek, you never fail to amaze me:)
With thanks to
"Von Ryans Express, Trevor Howard as a British Officer speaking to the Padre on the train!":)