Is it just me or is this Â£7 extra just for Sky Sports HD 1/2 a complete rip-off/con - Page 2

mersey70 · 12-01-2011, 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahardie

I would guess you are right as Sky don't give their own customers that option so it would be surprising if they gave customers of other platforms that choice.

Quite, if you want (pay) HD channels on Sky you pay the Â£10.25 charge whether you have 1 pack or all 6, kerching!

Digital Fanatic · 12-01-2011, 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersey70

Quite, if you want (pay) HD channels on Sky you pay the Â£10.25 charge whether you have 1 pack or all 6, kerching!

does seem a "cash-cow" for Sky, but people are paying it. Although I do agree that Sky have invested in this area.

mersey70 · 12-01-2011, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

does seem a "cash-cow" for Sky, but people are paying it. Although I do agree that Sky have invested in this area.

Indeed, amongst other areas they have invested millions in HD at their new HQ at Osterley but my word will they get it back, that HD charge alone generates about Â£300 million a year before costs. Definitely kerching!

Although good business I suppose.

nomadking · 12-01-2011, 14:39

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?

mersey70 · 12-01-2011, 14:47

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.

Doug P · 17-01-2011, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joedm45

That is my view too and precisely why I do not pay the Â£7 HD charge as a Sky Sports only subscriber.

I have said all along that Â£7 for all movies and sports 1 & 2 is good value considering Sky charge Â£10. As much as I like my footy, Â£7 for SS 1 & 2 in HD I cannot justify so will not pay

The perfect answer! It's fine if you can afford it. If not you have the choice. Easy....