Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

Due to a question asked by that nice Moderator l have done another poll in which the question is are you willing to pay more for further HD channels and my answer is yes as long as its no more then lets say £3 or £4 more.

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

in priniciple yes and depends what channels as no guarantee that they let VM have all the channels

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

As long as it is value for money I am with you.

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

No, but I respect the right of others to purchase further channels if they so wish.

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

If it gets more HD choice to Virgin, then i would be willing to pay more. :Yes:

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

Interesting but not suprising between the two HD vote polls, people want more HD channels at no extra cost!

It's frustrating but I respect VM stance on HD channel charges, like VM I see HD not as premium channels but just showing the same content with a better picture!

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

I'd pay more for the right HD channels, ie Sky Atlantic - I wouldn't pay a brass farthing for the likes of Good Food or Eden.

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

Nope don't want to pay more for extra HD channels, I'm happy with VMs current policy of adding extra HD channels at no extra cost to us

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

Would think about it. Cannot be dishonest and say I would not as I am paying extra for film and sport HD as it is..........

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

I say no, I want SD channels to be replaced with HD channels.

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

Am not at all sure that is a good move.............

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

What are the real costs of HD to produce and carry? Are they genuinely much more? Surely improved picture quality shouldn't really cost the consumer?

I think the problem here is that Sky have set a pricing model which amounts to absolute rip off, considering the already high subscription rates and the money they must be reeling in from advertisers. There's no real justification for it.

Virgin Media have the right idea - HD costs should be absorbed into existing subscription charges and not simply palmed off to the consumer as some sort of enhanced payment for something which is nothing more than improved picture quality. Lets get some perspective here folks.

If HD was actually worth paying for in any capacity, then it should only be through exclusive channels that aren't available as SD channels.

It's frustrating that many countries embraced HD for what it was and made it available through free to air services and and never profiteered from it. This just Sky for what they truly are.

Just think the next time you're watching an event on Sky Sports that YOU PAID TO WATCH, and just before it starts you're whisked away to be bombarded with adverts that would easily cover the cost of broadcasting the event...

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

If its sky sports 3 and 4 in hd then yes

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

If we were to get more HD channels by paying a monthly sub then yes i'd pay, but if we were to pay for what we have now then no chance.

Re: Are you willing to pay for more HD channels
 

agree 100%