Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Obviously no-one wants HD at this price then!;)

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I want HD in with my package please. If I pay for Sky Sports 1-3, I don't want to pay extra for HD versions of the same channels. No. No thanks. Which is why I won't go to sky who are effectively charging people twice for one product.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

So you want something for nothing?

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

They aren't charging twice for the same product. They are different products - one is standard definition and one is high definition. HD brings a lot of additional costs with it and Sky as a commercial enterprise is entitled to recover those costs. It isn't a charity.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

No, I pay for Sky Sports, SD/HD is irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

So they should offer the choice. You pay one price and either get SD or HD. Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 1 HD are the same. Same programmes, same ads, same everything. The consumer should get to choose SD or HD. One price.

What resolution is Bravo broadcast at? What resolution is ITV broadcast at? Is there a difference?

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I beg to differe hd is a new techonology and it shouldnt be the same price as sd, and htere is a difference s between itv and bravo resoltion i think certainly diffenret between bbc1 and say cbbc

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Why should you get one price? All of Sky's channels are bundled or packaged in one way or another. And no, SD and HD are not the same. The HD version of the channel requires more processing and more bandwidth from the satellite. The extra costs are real, not simply some imaginary figure pulled out of a hat to screw more money out of the subs. Granted they may use a single set of HD cameras at the venue and then downsample for the SD broadcast, but those cameras cost money - a lot of money - and Sky has opted to make those people who are able to benefit from the extra detail they capture, pay for it.

What's the relevance of this?

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

With regard to Sky's HD pricing, I was under the impression if you had Movies and/or Sports, and took HD on top of either or both of those, you only paid the £9.75/mo for HD on both, not twice for each package. Does that make any sense?

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I might have it wrong - it was only a quick advert I saw out the corner of my eye on television which said "Upgrade to Sky Sports HD for only £4.50 per week"
Now £4.50 per week is £18 per month - which I think is quite expensive.
On that basis, I am quite happy with my SD channels upscaled through the V+ box.

My point is basically that there are numerous posts on this site about the HD channels (indeed with some people it seems something of the Holy Grail). Whilst it's nice to have, I just wondered if people had to pay a premium for the additional HD channels - would they still clamour for it?

I think the answer is no.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

That might include the cost of Sky Sports and HD on top of that.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

It may be irrelevant to you - you are speaking only for yourself. If you are not bothered about HD, the increased price shouldn't worry you. So why are you worried?



I can see you are not a business man!

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

I see the prices are here

So if VM were going to follow suit - I'd be quite content with the status quo!

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Yep from what I can read you get the HD equivalents as part of the HD pack if you are subscribed to the SD equivalents. If you take SD Sky Sports you get HD Sky Sports as part of the 9.75GBP HD pack charge.

4.50GBP/week I guess would be both the cost of Sky Sports and the HD pack if you have neither already. As an incremental upgrade on top of SD it's actually pretty inexpensive.

---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 23:31 ----------

You pay the monthly HD fee and that's it. It's pretty standard to pay an HD subscription for HD Pay TV, even if it's hidden inside an existing TV package's costs.

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

Perfectly explained above by broadbandings, my dad has recently had the Sky HD box installed and all the channels that have an HD capability that he subscribes to in his package are included in the £9.75, so therefore the bigger your SD package the more value you receive from your £9.75. If VM were to offer a deal along those lines I'd be more than happy to pay the "HD supplement".

Re: An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels
 

My apologies for the original mis-post. I just caught the advert on the television - and the implication was upgrade to Sky Sports HD for £4.50 per week, which implied to me on the advert that it was an additional fee.

Having said that I see that they do offer BBC HD and C4 HD free (C4 HD only with a viewing card though). I'll assume that the pricing model for VM will be along similar lines - and a premium charged if you want full HD service.

Again - I ponder - all these people who clamour for HD - are they willing to pay, and I think the answer is no.