Quote:
Originally Posted by bamav
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...
|
Who pays for all those new Hi def cameras , HD studios , HD broadcast trucks , increased bandwith costs and were do you get other countries don't profit from it , here you go
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global...ssetId=1100106