HD : Are you willing to pay for more HD channels

[cupcakes aka dd]

Why should we be paying more for HD channels anyway? To me HD is the norm now and paying a premium for them doesn't quite compute. The future isn't HD it's here now and it's not some new tech.

[Itshim]

Never seek them out. If thats all there were would use, but "see" no advantage to them on my small TV ( 32")

[muppetman11]

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

[hodgie99]

I would have to say no
The reason being is that since the hd channels have been added the only tv package to rise in price is the xl tv so we are paying for them.
wen i first joined vm the price diff from med to xl was £9.50 now it is £18 so yes we already pay for hd which i dont mind but i am not willing to pay more

[RobboEdin]

Originally Posted by hodgie99

I would have to say no
The reason being is that since the hd channels have been added the only tv package to rise in price is the xl tv so we are paying for them.
wen i first joined vm the price diff from med to xl was £9.50 now it is £18 so yes we already pay for hd which i dont mind but i am not willing to pay more

I believe that to be incorrect but can't source the correct information. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can provide the correct information.

[HD Boy]

Originally Posted by hodgie99

I would have to say no
The reason being is that since the hd channels have been added the only tv package to rise in price is the xl tv so we are paying for them.
wen i first joined vm the price diff from med to xl was £9.50 now it is £18 so yes we already pay for hd which i dont mind but i am not willing to pay more

i think that is incorrect.

[hodgie99]

Originally Posted by martine93

i think that is incorrect.

When i took vm on i took the 3 for £30 which included phone line rental and to change from the basic m tv package to xl tv it was £9.50 so £39.50 per month then over the years 5 years to be exact the price rises took my payments upto £50 wiv loyalty discount but i had taken another box buy this time, if u look @ the same today it is £51.90 ish and majority of inreases was on the xl tv

[hodgie99]

Originally Posted by martine93

bundles do not include line rental

they dont now but when i took out 5 years ago it did

[HD Boy]

bundles do not include line rental