[i4u]

For just F1 in HD Sky charge a whopping £123 almost the cost of a yearly TV licence. Some people must have more money than sense?

Sky TV £21.50 - £55.50 pm by DD. HD Pack £5 extra pm for 6 months (£10.25pm extra thereafter)

Throw in the cost of SkyTV and the price is astronomical.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by i4u

For just F1 in HD Sky charge a whopping £123 almost the cost of a yearly TV licence. Some people must have more money than sense?

You get loads of HD channels included in that pack, so you're not just getting F1 in HD.

Apart from F1, you'll get all the sport in HD on ITV4 (and that's become a great sports channel) and Eurosport 1 & 2 HD too.

[ftakeith]

Originally Posted by i4u

For just F1 in HD Sky charge a whopping £123 almost the cost of a yearly TV licence. Some people must have more money than sense?



Throw in the cost of SkyTV and the price is astronomical.

once again a person that has not read the small print

you gets loads of hd channels on sky

[lotrjw]

How do you figure £123 from £55.50 plus £10.25 that only makes £65.75 pm which is £789 per year but this is for all basic and Sky premium channels and their HD equivalents just like what has been said above. To OP please explain the £123 price further! unless you have just started a fake post! then no one wants to know!

[alcockell]

Originally Posted by lotrjw

How do you figure £123 from £55.50 plus £10.25 that only makes £65.75 pm which is £789 per year but this is for all basic and Sky premium channels and their HD equivalents just like what has been said above. To OP please explain the £123 price further! unless you have just started a fake post! then no one wants to know!

I think it's from a standing start.

[stevendale123]

Originally Posted by lotrjw

How do you figure £123 from £55.50 plus £10.25 that only makes £65.75 pm which is £789 per year but this is for all basic and Sky premium channels and their HD equivalents just like what has been said above. To OP please explain the £123 price further! unless you have just started a fake post! then no one wants to know!

he's got the HD charge for a year £10.25 x 12

Strange thing is the OP posted about the offer for 6 mouths at 5 pounds so its really it's

10.25 x 6 + 5 x 6 = £91.5 for the first year

[Stereophonic83]

Another pointless thread bashing Sky

Everybody knows what the costs for Sky are; if you want to watch every F1 practice, qualifying and race live then you either pay Sky to do so or watch it delayed on BBC for half the season.

[lotrjw]

Originally Posted by stevendale123

he's got the HD charge for a year £10.25 x 12

Strange thing is the OP posted about the offer for 6 mouths at 5 pounds so its really it's

10.25 x 6 + 5 x 6 = £91.5 for the first year

oh right thanks for that and like some of us said before you get lots of HD channels for that I think its up to about 60 HD channels Im sure thats more than was availible on analouge sky but in HD! I managed to get sky to give me HD for half price for a year! I did it though the threaten to cancle route!

[samburrows]

Pointless thread. Things are worth what people will pay for them - if you don't like / can't afford it then don't pay it.

If enough people don't like it / can't afford it then the price will come down.

If enough people subscribe (like me) the charge will remain or go up.

Welcome to basic economics. Everything has a worth to someone.

[Caxton]

Originally Posted by Stereophonic83

Another pointless thread bashing Sky

Everybody knows what the costs for Sky are; if you want to watch every F1 practice, qualifying and race live then you either pay Sky to do so or watch it delayed on BBC for half the season.

Originally Posted by samburrows

Pointless thread. Things are worth what people will pay for them - if you don't like / can't afford it then don't pay it.

If enough people don't like it / can't afford it then the price will come down.

If enough people subscribe (like me) the charge will remain or go up.

Welcome to basic economics. Everything has a worth to someone.

Two excellent posts. The choice is with the viewer, no longer can everything that viewers want be provided free on TV. So it is either pay up or put up with what you have on Freeview.

[howard h]

Had some post from Sky. By the time I added up the basic entertainment channel, sports in HD and whatever, (1) I had a headache from working it all out and (2) did my back in laughing at how much they wanted...and that's WITH offers.

Dear Mr. Sky (and Mr. Virgin, Mr. BT) If you REALLY want my custom, offer me a sports-only SD package. Preferably a cheaper option without the Premiership. I don't want films, I don't want endless crappy reality shows and I don't want stuff that's been repeated ad nausium.

If you can't do that, leave me alone. Thank you.

[kidspud]

Originally Posted by Caxton

Two excellent posts. The choice is with the viewer, no longer can everything that viewers want be provided free on TV. So it is either pay up or put up with what you have on Freeview.

I think that is a little hard on the OP. Whether you can afford it or not, it is an interesting observation that if you wanted to watch F1 and currently do not have sky it is a considerable investment in order to get it.

It shows the clever packaging of different stations in order for the pay tv companies to extract money out of the customer.

I'm not sure the "choice" everyone was hoping for has ever appeared.

[samburrows]

Originally Posted by kidspud

I'm not sure the "choice" everyone was hoping for has ever appeared.

The choice is as clear as day - either you subscribe or you don't. Only the individual can know whether they can or want to pay the price being asked by the vendor.

[BenFranklin]

HD isn't that great, can easily save yourself some money and go without.

[Tassium]

The fallacy of the view that more channels (more choice) is better for the public is vividly clear nowadays.

Some people say that without Sky we wouldn't now have all these sports channels etc etc...

But it seems likely the BBC would have used advances in digital technology to provide the identical service that Sky offer, for a fraction of the price.


However that horse has bolted... No turning back the clock, unless a future government sees the error of it's ways and changes the rights issues in the UK. And I think the dictators in the EU would have something to say about that.

[Elissa Richards]

Originally Posted by BenFranklin

HD isn't that great, can easily save yourself some money and go without.

I disagree......I've seen the cars plenty of times racing and the HD is finally starting to show how they actually look in real life. I find going back to the SD feed now makes it look very soft in comparison and the resolution of detail is lacking.

But as always...it's different things to different people.

Originally Posted by Tassium

The fallacy of the view that more channels (more choice) is better for the public is vividly clear nowadays.

Some people say that without Sky we wouldn't now have all these sports channels etc etc...

But it seems likely the BBC would have used advances in digital technology to provide the identical service that Sky offer, for a fraction of the price.

However that horse has bolted... No turning back the clock, unless a future government sees the error of it's ways and changes the rights issues in the UK. And I think the dictators in the EU would have something to say about that.

Sorry to be blunt but that is pie in the sky escapism....

There's no way on Earth the BBC could fund all the stuff you get on Sky and provide that level of sports coverage for the price of a tv licence.....

The BBC could've potentially done all the live stuff that Sky Sports does, but it'd have to bin off all the other channels. Look at how many channels the BBC does now, are you honestly saying they could afford to dozens more with no change to the licence fee? No matter how you square it, somebody somewhere has to pick up the tab, I guess it's more palatable to people to be paying the BBC as opposed to Sky.....you'll still be paying for it though, but whatever makes you happy I suppose.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by BenFranklin

HD isn't that great, can easily save yourself some money and go without.

Either your TV isn't that good, or you're watching BBC One HD/BBC HD all the time, which run at a much lower bitrate than other channels.

e.g. Five episodes of Ripper Street on my Sky+HD planner take up only 13.2gb of disk space compared to one hour of Nashville on More4 HD at 7.6gb.

Even ITV HD fares much better than BBC HD, Four episodes of Lightfields come in at 19.1gb.

[samburrows]

My goodness, so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start.

Originally Posted by Tassium

The fallacy of the view that more channels (more choice) is better for the public is vividly clear nowadays.

What do you mean by 'better' ? It seems as though you're equating better with 'free' - personally I'm more than happy with the choice I have provided. I can buy all kinds of wonderful broadcast services with my hard earned money and our broadcasting landscape is all the better for it. I have a choice of channels, providers both domestic and international - you expect the public broadcasters to provide that at a high quality free of charge do you?

Originally Posted by Tassium

Some people say that without Sky we wouldn't now have all these sports channels etc etc...

But it seems likely the BBC would have used advances in digital technology to provide the identical service that Sky offer, for a fraction of the price.

What is your evidence base for this? Before multi-channel broadcasting the BBC were lukewarm to sports broadcasting at best. It's thanks to the market created by private providers such as Sky, Virgin, BT and others that we have the demand for the services which require the advances in digital technology.

Originally Posted by Tassium

However that horse has bolted... No turning back the clock, unless a future government sees the error of it's ways and changes the rights issues in the UK. And I think the dictators in the EU would have something to say about that.

This one's just petty. Dictators? You want to try living in a real dictatorship where your freedoms are actively curtailed. Ironically, if this was an EU dictatorship, you'd be expecting a knock on the door from the EU Gestapo shortly. To steer slightly back on topic, it's thanks to the EU that should you wish to reject the wonderful choice of broadcasters in this country and embrace a different system you're welcome to. Thanks to the EU directive on broadcasting and the wider principles of free movement of goods and services you're free to watch broadcaster television from all over the Union.

F1 is the perfect case in point. You are legally entitled to spend £30 on a satellite system to watch F1 for free from RTL Germany - embrace it.

[Tassium]

Originally Posted by Elissa Richards

I disagree......I've seen the cars plenty of times racing and the HD is finally starting to show how they actually look in real life. I find going back to the SD feed now makes it look very soft in comparison and the resolution of detail is lacking.

But as always...it's different things to different people.



Sorry to be blunt but that is pie in the sky escapism....

There's no way on Earth the BBC could fund all the stuff you get on Sky and provide that level of sports coverage for the price of a tv licence.....

The BBC could've potentially done all the live stuff that Sky Sports does, but it'd have to bin off all the other channels. Look at how many channels the BBC does now, are you honestly saying they could afford to dozens more with no change to licence fee?

Sports coverage is not that expensive, it's the rights issues that cost the billions.

Sport is one of the cheapest things to broadcast.

[ktla5]

Originally Posted by i4u

For just F1 in HD Sky charge a whopping £123 almost the cost of a yearly TV licence. Some people must have more money than sense?



Throw in the cost of SkyTV and the price is astronomical.

Not quite truthful is is ? You get a darn sight more than just F1 ! but don't let this stop you having a pop, by the same reasoning I pay £150 a year so that I can watch BBC News South and East at 6.30 each day.

[Elissa Richards]

Originally Posted by Tassium

Sports coverage is not that expensive, it's the rights issues that cost the billions.

Sport is one of the cheapest things to broadcast.

The BBC has the slightly inconvieniant responsibility to cater to more then just sports fans, being a public broadcaster....unlike Sky who can focus in on something. I think you misunderstand the realities of the market and no amount of populist posturing is going to change that.

Complaining about the costs of sports broadcasting is a different argument to complaining about Sky.

[ktla5]

Originally Posted by Tassium

The fallacy of the view that more channels (more choice) is better for the public is vividly clear nowadays.

Some people say that without Sky we wouldn't now have all these sports channels etc etc...

But it seems likely the BBC would have used advances in digital technology to provide the identical service that Sky offer, for a fraction of the price.


However that horse has bolted... No turning back the clock, unless a future government sees the error of it's ways and changes the rights issues in the UK. And I think the dictators in the EU would have something to say about that.

And you could also argue that the arrival of Sky gave all the existing companies a kick up the arse and make them look up and listen!

[BenFranklin]

Originally Posted by Elissa Richards

I disagree......I've seen the cars plenty of times racing and the HD is finally starting to show how they actually look in real life. I find going back to the SD feed now makes it look very soft in comparison and the resolution of detail is lacking.

Well yes, SD is lower resolution than HD so "resolution of detail is lacking" is a pretty obvious thing to say.

The point is, HD is not essential, if money is tight then you can easily go without it and still enjoy live F1 coverage.

[Elissa Richards]

Originally Posted by BenFranklin

Well yes, SD is lower resolution than HD so "resolution of detail is lacking" is a pretty obvious thing to say.

The point is, HD is not essential, if money is tight then you can easily go without it and still enjoy live F1 coverage.

Yes you can without it, no question of that....But you said it wasn't that great, which is a subjective opinion and clearly many people do think HD is worth it. At no point did I say 'you need it' did I?

Wanna try and patronise me some more eh?? Of course it's obvious HD is a better picture to SD () but the difference between them in my opinion is far more than you're implying. Another thing to consider is different broadcasters do 'HD' at differing resolutions, IIRC correctly the BBC was (is?) providing a 'HD' feed for the F1 that wasn't actually HD as it was a lower bit rate to Sky...

[kidspud]

Originally Posted by samburrows

The choice is as clear as day - either you subscribe or you don't. Only the individual can know whether they can or want to pay the price being asked by the vendor.

I didn't say the choice wasn't clear, I said it wasn't what people were hoping for.

It's a strange one with F1 because they could easily have an F1 channel which people could just subscribe to.