sky should make their hd pack free for subscribers
And what is supposed to happen to the "HD fees" Sky are paying to - at least some - channels? These are the only things keeping ITV2/3/4HD, for example, going.
Seriously though, they are just following the Sky model. And for the same reason, I will never subscribe separately to Sky or BT HD (or anyone else's for that matter).
Seriously though, they are just following the Sky model. And for the same reason, I will never subscribe separately to Sky or BT HD (or anyone else's for that matter).
but you're forgetting that if there was no revenue stream from an HD package, the majority (it not all) subscription HD channels probably would not exist as they use the income from the sub to provide the channels. (ITV being a prime example).
with no extra revenue, what's in it for channels to provide an HD version.
Seriously though, they are just following the Sky model. And for the same reason, I will never subscribe separately to Sky or BT HD (or anyone else's for that matter).
Why would you not sub to HD channels? Perhaps I shouldn't have asked.
Correct me if i am wrong here, but Sky doesn't offer a 'HD Pack' anymore (Apart from those still on the old package model)
If you subscribe to EE+ you get HD..
Correct me if i am wrong here, but Sky doesn't offer a 'HD Pack' anymore (Apart from those still on the old package model)
If you subscribe to EE+ you get HD..
you're still essentially paying £5pm for those channels in HD.
HD is free on freesat so you know what to do.:Dafter reading this i rang sky and asked to upgrade to HD and was told it would be £10.50 so is that right:mad:
but you're forgetting that if there was no revenue stream from an HD package, the majority (it not all) subscription HD channels probably would not exist as they use the income from the sub to provide the channels. (ITV being a prime example).
with no extra revenue, what's in it for channels to provide an HD version.
They'd either have to raise other prices to spread the costs across the board, or, preferably (if competition was tougher) cut costs to pay for it. The additional costs these days must be far lower than they were in the early HD days, and as HD equipment and facilities become standard, which by now they ought to be anyway, the reducing cost differential should just be absorbed. Sky have had 7 years to pay for it and that's more than long enough IMO.
What's in it for channels who don't provide HD? Fewer viewers and possibly ultimate failure, that's what. If that forced some of the dross out, so much the better.
They'd either have to raise other prices to spread the costs across the board, or, preferably (if competition was tougher) cut costs to pay for it. The additional costs these days must be far lower than they were in the early HD days, and as HD equipment and facilities become standard, which by now they ought to be anyway, the reducing cost differential should just be absorbed. Sky have had 7 years to pay for it and that's more than long enough IMO.
What's in it for channels who don't provide HD? Fewer viewers and possibly ultimate failure, that's what. If that forced some of the dross out, so much the better.
but the channels use it as a revenue stream, that's the bottom line. ITV were blatant about it, ITV2,3,4 HD wouldn't exist is they couldn't make money out of it.
remember that the £10pm for HD is distributed out to the channels that are part of the package. it's not purely £10pm and all of it goes to sky.
They'd either have to raise other prices to spread the costs across the board, or, preferably (if competition was tougher) cut costs to pay for it. The additional costs these days must be far lower than they were in the early HD days, and as HD equipment and facilities become standard, which by now they ought to be anyway, the reducing cost differential should just be absorbed. Sky have had 7 years to pay for it and that's more than long enough IMO.
What's in it for channels who don't provide HD? Fewer viewers and possibly ultimate failure, that's what. If that forced some of the dross out, so much the better.
but its not pure HD most of the time its just an upscale version of SD but you are being charged for full HD. my tv dose this for free
but its not pure HD most of the time its just an upscale version of SD but you are being charged for full HD. my tv dose this for free
!!!...??
Alot of the HD channels broadcast more HD content than you can shake a stick at.
The amount of upscaled content is falling all the time and its not that much now..
All HD Ready TVs have upscalers built in, because if they didn't, when you came to watch something that was shot in a resolution different to that of the screen, you'd end up with a postage stamp-sized bit of video. If you were watching something with dimensions of 720x576 pixels, it would float in the middle of a 1,920x1,080-pixel screen.
All HD Ready TVs have upscalers built in, because if they didn't, when you came to watch something that was shot in a resolution different to that of the screen, you'd end up with a postage stamp-sized bit of video. If you were watching something with dimensions of 720x576 pixels, it would float in the middle of a 1,920x1,080-pixel screen.
so why pay if the tv does it for free cant see any difference on my tv
Are you serious here?
You actually think that you get HD just by your TV upscaling the content to fit your screen?!
Thats not HD. And if you can't tell the difference between native HD and upscaled, i either suggest you need to get to Specsavers, or you don't have a HD source...
Comments
Why do you think that?
everyone's a business expert aren't they!
Thanks for that reasoned argument full of relevant points.:rolleyes:
Does any other TV network in Europe charge the subscriber for HD.If so which ones are they .
As chenks suggests the OP seems to be trying to wind other posters up. :rolleyes:
BT Sport adds on 25% for HD.
But 25% of £0 would be £0...
Seriously though, they are just following the Sky model. And for the same reason, I will never subscribe separately to Sky or BT HD (or anyone else's for that matter).
but you're forgetting that if there was no revenue stream from an HD package, the majority (it not all) subscription HD channels probably would not exist as they use the income from the sub to provide the channels. (ITV being a prime example).
with no extra revenue, what's in it for channels to provide an HD version.
Why would you not sub to HD channels? Perhaps I shouldn't have asked.
I've told you already, it's not 25%. It's £3, regardless of how much you're paying for the SD channels.
The only exception is the "free HD" offer for those signing up before August 2013.
They could have just charged a flat rate of £15 (for those who have to pay!!) and done a Virgin and say HD is 'free'.
If you subscribe to EE+ you get HD..
you're still essentially paying £5pm for those channels in HD.
those channels are also free on Sky
They'd either have to raise other prices to spread the costs across the board, or, preferably (if competition was tougher) cut costs to pay for it. The additional costs these days must be far lower than they were in the early HD days, and as HD equipment and facilities become standard, which by now they ought to be anyway, the reducing cost differential should just be absorbed. Sky have had 7 years to pay for it and that's more than long enough IMO.
What's in it for channels who don't provide HD? Fewer viewers and possibly ultimate failure, that's what. If that forced some of the dross out, so much the better.
but the channels use it as a revenue stream, that's the bottom line. ITV were blatant about it, ITV2,3,4 HD wouldn't exist is they couldn't make money out of it.
remember that the £10pm for HD is distributed out to the channels that are part of the package. it's not purely £10pm and all of it goes to sky.
but its not pure HD most of the time its just an upscale version of SD but you are being charged for full HD. my tv dose this for free
!!!...??
Alot of the HD channels broadcast more HD content than you can shake a stick at.
The amount of upscaled content is falling all the time and its not that much now..
Common knowledge
But what's your point?
so why pay if the tv does it for free cant see any difference on my tv
Are you serious here?
You actually think that you get HD just by your TV upscaling the content to fit your screen?!
Thats not HD. And if you can't tell the difference between native HD and upscaled, i either suggest you need to get to Specsavers, or you don't have a HD source...