networkn:

 

If they made Food TV in HD I'd be over the MOON.

 

 

 

So would my wife and the TV would be locked on one channel 

No HD charge would benefit my household but with Sky on Vodafone TV there is no charge for HD.

I don't think it is archaic to charge for HD. HD is differentiated because of its higher quality so I don't see why they shouldn't charge for it even if it is not on all channels.

A lot of people don't care about HD, e.g. use Cartoon Network and the like for their kids, so I don't see why they should have to pay for those who do.

The real tragedy is the Rugby Channel. All that glorious rugby in SD. It's practically unwatchable.

ockel:

 

Krishant007:

 

On the flip side, what are the thoughts of making HD standard across all of Sky (removing the HD ticket thing) but increasing cost of the basic package by $5 or something like that?

 

 

And for those that dont want HD?  The furore over the 69c price increase for Basic?  What sort of reaction do you think there would be if the price went up $5 - especially for those that dont want HD?

 

So you feel that Sky shouldnt do that? 

ockel:

 

Krishant007:

 

On the flip side, what are the thoughts of making HD standard across all of Sky (removing the HD ticket thing) but increasing cost of the basic package by $5 or something like that?

 

 

And for those that dont want HD?  The furore over the 69c price increase for Basic?  What sort of reaction do you think there would be if the price went up $5 - especially for those that dont want HD?

 

I bet those same folk who "don't want HD" would be very pleased if it came at no charge 

Krishant007:

 

ockel:

 

Krishant007:

 

On the flip side, what are the thoughts of making HD standard across all of Sky (removing the HD ticket thing) but increasing cost of the basic package by $5 or something like that?

 

 

And for those that dont want HD?  The furore over the 69c price increase for Basic?  What sort of reaction do you think there would be if the price went up $5 - especially for those that dont want HD?

 

 

 

 

So you feel that Sky shouldnt do that? 

 

I think the benefit of offering a premium product at a standard price would be lost in the "discussion" about price.  Especially from the former subscribers who continue to have a chip on their shoulder from missing their content.

i have multi room so i dont get charged for HD.

richms:

 

IMO there is a sort of justification at the moment where the HD streams are separate from the SD ones because the SD boxes are antiques. Once they have moved to a single transmission when all the mpeg 2 dinosaurs are gone, then I think it is a real ripoff to be charging more for the HD.

 

The biggest problem with sky is the lack of HD. No docco channels in HD, no news channels, only sports and the junk movie service.

 

My guess is that dropping the HD ticket may be one of the things that happens when Sky complete the new decoder roll out, swap their transponders to MPEG4 and shut off the duplicate SD transmissions. As you say, it's kind of been justified until now as it required separate bandwidth to the SD signal, but when HD is the only signal being broadcast then the extra charge really should go.

trig42:

 

TV1, 2 and 3 are HD anyway I think (on MySky). The only HD benefits you get for paying the (ridiculous) $10 is in Sport and Movies. It is not worth it, but it is a 'must have' IMO. It is one of the reasons I gave Sky the flick - I find it offensive that they charge for it (its 2016 ffs!)

 

Seriously?  So for the years I had Sky and paid for HD "ticket" but never had Sports or Movies, I was wasting my money?  You'd think Sky would have said something to me

The other thing that annoyed me was that regardless of whether you had paid for HD, the recordings on the MySky (small) HDD were stored in HD

tangerz:

 

richms:

 

IMO there is a sort of justification at the moment where the HD streams are separate from the SD ones because the SD boxes are antiques. Once they have moved to a single transmission when all the mpeg 2 dinosaurs are gone, then I think it is a real ripoff to be charging more for the HD.

 

The biggest problem with sky is the lack of HD. No docco channels in HD, no news channels, only sports and the junk movie service.

 

 

 

 

My guess is that dropping the HD ticket may be one of the things that happens when Sky complete the new decoder roll out, swap their transponders to MPEG4 and shut off the duplicate SD transmissions. As you say, it's kind of been justified until now as it required separate bandwidth to the SD signal, but when HD is the only signal being broadcast then the extra charge really should go.

 

Got any examples of satellite (or cable) providers dropping their HD charge when they upgrade to new spec's?  I think you're dreaming.

ockel:

 

tangerz:

 

richms:

 

IMO there is a sort of justification at the moment where the HD streams are separate from the SD ones because the SD boxes are antiques. Once they have moved to a single transmission when all the mpeg 2 dinosaurs are gone, then I think it is a real ripoff to be charging more for the HD.

 

The biggest problem with sky is the lack of HD. No docco channels in HD, no news channels, only sports and the junk movie service.

 

 

 

 

My guess is that dropping the HD ticket may be one of the things that happens when Sky complete the new decoder roll out, swap their transponders to MPEG4 and shut off the duplicate SD transmissions. As you say, it's kind of been justified until now as it required separate bandwidth to the SD signal, but when HD is the only signal being broadcast then the extra charge really should go.

 

 

Got any examples of satellite (or cable) providers dropping their HD charge when they upgrade to new spec's?  I think you're dreaming.

 

Given the way things are going for them at the moment, it's obvious there needs to be some change (and Sky know it!) which is why I think it's a real possibility!

tangerz:

 

ockel:

 

tangerz:

 

richms:

 

IMO there is a sort of justification at the moment where the HD streams are separate from the SD ones because the SD boxes are antiques. Once they have moved to a single transmission when all the mpeg 2 dinosaurs are gone, then I think it is a real ripoff to be charging more for the HD.

 

The biggest problem with sky is the lack of HD. No docco channels in HD, no news channels, only sports and the junk movie service.

 

 

 

 

My guess is that dropping the HD ticket may be one of the things that happens when Sky complete the new decoder roll out, swap their transponders to MPEG4 and shut off the duplicate SD transmissions. As you say, it's kind of been justified until now as it required separate bandwidth to the SD signal, but when HD is the only signal being broadcast then the extra charge really should go.

 

 

Got any examples of satellite (or cable) providers dropping their HD charge when they upgrade to new spec's?  I think you're dreaming.

 

 

Given the way things are going for them at the moment, it's obvious there needs to be some change (and Sky know it!) which is why I think it's a real possibility!

 

Giving something away for free trivials the value proposition.  Do you really think that Spark subscribers think they just got $150 worth of value by getting free Lightbox?  Or that the value of Lightbox content just went to zero?  Give something away for free and people ascribe zero value to the utility of having that product.  And once you give something away for free (or drop the price of something) you will never ever recover it back.

I suspect rather than dropping it they will add a few more upgradable channels since they will have the capacity for it without the space hogging mpeg2 sd taking all the capacity. That way they can talk about adding more value to the HD ticket when all they have had to do is remove some down-scaling equipment.

richms:

 

I suspect rather than dropping it they will add a few more upgradable channels since they will have the capacity for it without the space hogging mpeg2 sd taking all the capacity. That way they can talk about adding more value to the HD ticket when all they have had to do is remove some down-scaling equipment.

 

And wouldnt it be ironic if it happened about the time that Neon went HD, as Sky "underestimated" the demand for HD previously so is now acquiring HD rights.  Who knows - perhaps immediately after the Olympics when the 12 dedicated Olympic channels cease broadcasting?

ockel:

 

tangerz:

 

richms:

 

IMO there is a sort of justification at the moment where the HD streams are separate from the SD ones because the SD boxes are antiques. Once they have moved to a single transmission when all the mpeg 2 dinosaurs are gone, then I think it is a real ripoff to be charging more for the HD.

 

The biggest problem with sky is the lack of HD. No docco channels in HD, no news channels, only sports and the junk movie service.

 

 

 

 

My guess is that dropping the HD ticket may be one of the things that happens when Sky complete the new decoder roll out, swap their transponders to MPEG4 and shut off the duplicate SD transmissions. As you say, it's kind of been justified until now as it required separate bandwidth to the SD signal, but when HD is the only signal being broadcast then the extra charge really should go.

 

 

Got any examples of satellite (or cable) providers dropping their HD charge when they upgrade to new spec's?  I think you're dreaming.

 

IIRC when Sky UK did their big EPG upgrade to the HD EPG, around 7 or so years ago, they dropped the HD extra 10 pound charge and its been dropped ever since.

A quick check on the Sky UK site shows...

350+ channels including 50 in HD

350+ Sky Box Sets

£38 a month + free Sky+HD 2TB box

They have even more HD

Sport - 7 Sky Sports channels (27.50/month)

Movies - 11 Sky Movies channels (18 quid/month)

Or both for 36 quid/month

Sky UK's equivalent of Soho (Sky Atlantic) is thrown into the family bundle at no extra cost