Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
I wonder what are the extra costs for broadcasters of HD. I wouldn't have thought that it would be the broadcast rights to programmes, as nowadays things are shot in HD anyway. It would be the SD version which required extra processing. Do Sky have to pay more for the satellite capacity and are unfairly passing on part of that cost to VM?
|
I would guess there are all manner of extra costs associated with HD. I know Sky invested many millions in their HD studios and suites at Osterley. Of course Sky have to rent more transponder space to broadcast their HD channels so I suppose as a business that maybe they recoup some of those costs from other platforms who choose to broadcast their channels. I don't think that is really unfair personally, the same could be said for Disney, ESPN, DNE, any of the channel providers.
VM have chosen not to be a channel provider for much longer, it was their own business decision.