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

Retro-Cable'94 · 11-01-2011, 05:57

Considering i already have all Sky Sports channels in Standard-definition but i have to pay Â£7 extra just for the High-definition TV broadcasts of Sky Sports (not Â£7 to subscribe to Sky Sports whether SD or HD in the first place), & to top it it all of, it's only Sky Sports HD 1 & HD 2 that will be available, not HD 3, HD 4 & Sky Sports News HD!

Plus there is no Red button interactive service even though Virgin Cable have announced this service as being available to it's customers, so why are we still waiting when we pay good money for there business, i've heard we will be receiving this service before April '11, not Summer '10 when it was officially announced as being available.

In my opinion it is such a rip-off & a con just because it's HD, don't get me wrong i love HD but not to pay in this way, i just hope that Virgin Cable have pushed the public's patience & misjudged there perception that everybody will be willing to pay the Â£7 extra just for HD simulcasts of SD channels they already receive for which they already pay the additional subscription.

mersey70 · 11-01-2011, 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retro-Cable'94

Considering i already have all Sky Sports channels in Standard-definition but i have to pay Â£7 extra just for the High-definition TV broadcasts of Sky Sports (not Â£7 to subscribe to Sky Sports whether SD or HD in the first place), & to top it it all of, it's only Sky Sports HD 1 & HD 2 that will be available, not HD 3, HD 4 & Sky Sports News HD!

Plus there is no Red button interactive service even though Virgin Cable have announced this service as being available to it's customers, so why are we still waiting when we pay good money for there business, i've heard we will be receiving this service before April '11, not Summer '10 when it was officially announced as being available.

In my opinion it is such a rip-off & a con just because it's HD, don't get me wrong i love HD but not to pay in this way, i just hope that Virgin Cable have pushed the public's patience & misjudged there perception that everybody will be willing to pay the Â£7 extra just for HD simulcasts of SD channels they already receive for which they already pay the additional subscription.

In fairness you don't have to pay the Â£7 charge for HD but you are free to do so. And of course Sky charge over Â£10 to their own customers for HD although I accept they get all available Sky HD channels (in their package) for their money. Sky don't look like they want to provide VM with SSP 3 & 4 in HD, as for SSN HD I think it was stated by VM that it is available to them at a wholesale price so maybe that will become available in the future.

I don't know when Red Button will be available but hopefully it will be here sooner rather than later, how comprehensive a service will be provided is anyone's guess.

Regarding the HD fee as far as I understand it Sky imposed a charge on VM, whether it is exactly Â£7 I do not know but in order for them to provide the HD simulcasts they had no choice but to charge customers.

As anyone who reads my posts will know I often say VM customers sometimes seem to blame Sky undeservedly for certain issues but regarding the HD charge and lack of SSP 3 & 4 HD this is definitely down to Sky, there's absolutely no question about that. On the other side of the coin they charge their own customers extra for HD and ultimately they own the channels, there is nothing regulation wise that OFCOM can currently do about them not providing SSP 3 and 4 HD. At least I don't think there is.

nialli · 11-01-2011, 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retro-Cable'94

Considering i already have all Sky Sports channels in Standard-definition but i have to pay Â£7 extra just for the High-definition TV broadcasts of Sky Sports (not Â£7 to subscribe to Sky Sports whether SD or HD in the first place), & to top it it all of, it's only Sky Sports HD 1 & HD 2 that will be available, not HD 3, HD 4 & Sky Sports News HD!

Plus there is no Red button interactive service even though Virgin Cable have announced this service as being available to it's customers, so why are we still waiting when we pay good money for there business, i've heard we will be receiving this service before April '11, not Summer '10 when it was officially announced as being available.

In my opinion it is such a rip-off & a con just because it's HD, don't get me wrong i love HD but not to pay in this way, i just hope that Virgin Cable have pushed the public's patience & misjudged there perception that everybody will be willing to pay the Â£7 extra just for HD simulcasts of SD channels they already receive for which they already pay the additional subscription.

Sky Sports HD 1 and 2...and ten Sky Movies HD channels. Pricing was set by Sky. If you don't think it's good value, don't take it - at least VM customers now have a choice.

Personally, I've been surprised by how average Sky's own HD picture quality is - the imported stuff (eg US football) and ESPN HD look superior to my eyes.

Joedm45 · 11-01-2011, 07:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by nialli

Sky Sports HD 1 and 2...and ten Sky Movies HD channels. Pricing was set by Sky. If you don't think it's good value, don't take it - at least VM customers now have a choice.

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

bamav · 11-01-2011, 12:41

Would it make those disgruntled few happier if VM stopped giving free HD channels and instead charged a blanket Â£10 for all HD versions whether you have the package or not, as Sky do? So the majority lose out just because that's the only thing that will make it sound "fair". Stop grumbling about a pittance of Â£7, which is pennies more than some magazines. And it's not the principal either! Usual story, you want it you pay for it.

Mr K · 11-01-2011, 18:53

yes, it is rip off so don't bother. V. little difference on the size of screen most people have got anyway.

AIDEN_23 · 11-01-2011, 19:39

Personally I think that there is a big difference on my tv! Amazing difference actually! Especially with sports (mainly NFL for me) just a shame ESPNUS hasn't made the jump yet. Does anyone know what the deal was with the Â£7 hd charge for VIP50 customers?I personally remember it was waivered. After speaking with Virgin they claim to know nothing about this,surprising considering it was someone from retentions that informed me of this.I ask as I have noticed that the charge goes on my account through VME but never comes off again.Does this mean that I am due a wee rebate woohoo (yeah right)!

Mr K · 11-01-2011, 19:43

HD = Emperor's New Clothes. Still not convinced a digital picture is any better than good quality analogue.

AIDEN_23 · 11-01-2011, 20:02

A good quality analogue picture probably would look better than a digital one but lets face it Who actually gets a good analogue siginal? Never had one on any TV ever! But doesnt matter as the analogue signal is going anyway. HD is not "Emperor's new clothes" well not for me anyway, I appreciate the quality that HD brings in particular BLU-RAY.I refuse to watch DVD now, doesn't cut it for me!Not just the picture its the sound aswell! Amazing!

bamav · 11-01-2011, 21:09

Anyone who can't see the difference between SD and HD on a 37in + TV obviously needs to go to Specsavers. There is a considerable difference in image quality. What sometimes hits me is that HD doesn't make what you're watching any more enjoyable, which is the real purpose of it all.

oblong · 11-01-2011, 21:50

HD is worth it if you have the movies as well. The Ashes looked absolutely incredible in HD.

LondonRoad · 11-01-2011, 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by oblong

HD is worth it if you have the movies as well. The Ashes looked absolutely incredible in HD.

I suspect most natives of Oz would disagree. I also suspect that most followers of English cricket would have enjoyed the ashes just as much in SD.

11-01-2011, 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by oblong

HD is worth it if you have the movies as well. The Ashes looked absolutely incredible in HD.

It was great to win the Ashes in HD in Australia, last time we won it was in 4:3 and VHS

Lew · 12-01-2011, 08:23

I think it doesn't help that it's just a blanket Â£7 charge so that the value for money is different depending on whether you have Sky Sports, Sky Movies or both. It probably would have been fairer to have it as (for example) Â£3 for Sky Sports HD and Â£4 for Sky Movies HD, but I doubt VM were given that option by Sky.

12-01-2011, 08:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lew

I think it doesn't help that it's just a blanket Â£7 charge so that the value for money is different depending on whether you have Sky Sports, Sky Movies or both. It probably would have been fairer to have it as (for example) Â£3 for Sky Sports HD and Â£4 for Sky Movies HD, but I doubt VM were given that option by Sky.

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.