Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35518612)

Some might call it value but HD now should be seen as standard and not as some extra add on charge.:nono:

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35518638)

Far from it. See table 2.17 here.

Also, only 59% of HD-ready TV owners have an HD source available.
(Source: table 86 here)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35518619)

But the thing is MM nearly everything is done in HD now so why should people have to pay a extra premium to get access to it.

Originally Posted by Doz007 (Post 35518968)

Thanks for the link, table 2.17 is very interesting but unless I'm missing something obvious, the reason 60% of people upgrade is because they want the latest technology. HD is the latest in TV tech in my eyes.

As for 59% of people not having a HD source available. That figure does seem really high and I guess it's due to uneducated consumers and over eagar salesmen. I hear the phrase "this TV will make everything you watch HD" quite a lot in Currys etc.



Do you still complain about paying a £100 per year premium to watch colour TV?

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.

Taken from: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35518972)

Indeed in my opinion the TV Licence should have been abolished a long time ago and the BBC should have to survive in the commercial world just like anybody else.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35518972)

Indeed in my opinion the TV Licence should have been abolished a long time ago and the BBC should have to survive in the commercial world just like anybody else.

Originally Posted by Doz007 (Post 35518975)

Whilst I agree with you Den, that's another debate entirely. :)

My point was the £100 per year premium for watching TV in colour. Colour is the 100% industry standard today but yet still demands a premium - why do you think HD shouldn't do the same?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35519030)

well that's me 100% sky ,dumped BT i have just upgraded my package to
Sky talk =free+ 14.50 line rental
entertainment extra 26.50
Sky BB unlimited (only get 4-6mg)
one multiroom box £10 per month

cost of package 58.50+vat

saving me about 30-40 £'s per month and i'm getting exactly the same BB as i got from BT

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher (Post 35519193)

You have gone the same way as me :tu: with the only difference being skyfibre unlimited is available here.

Once it becomes available in your area and you upgrade, you won't know yourself. :)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35519196)

I thought it was ridiculous waiting for BT to upgrade my area .It has been put back 3 times so i thought if the best i can get is 4-5 meg then i will not continue paying BT's premium price (£26p/m i think it was)when i can get the same connection speed from sky for £7.50 .
BT tried to match the deal for £40 p/m using their tv service which requires at least 2meg of the connection speed to work so playing games for the lads will be a no no .Seems pointless even offering it in low speed areas

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher (Post 35519197)

I think BT suck, I want nothing to do with them.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35519198)

My only gripe now is that i still have pay BT for the line rental :(

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35519200)

Why , Sky have their own line rental.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35519201)

I know but doesn't that go to BT because bt own the lines ?