An email from Neil Berkett re: VM HD Channels - Page 6

AndyCambs · 15-04-2009, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Funnily enough I saw an ad on Sky 1 last night - something along the lines of upgrade to HD on Skysports for only Â£4.50 per week.

Any takers for HD at that price? (assuming I understood the ad correctly in my tiredness...)

Obviously no-one wants HD at this price then!

akki007 · 15-04-2009, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Obviously no-one wants HD at this price then!

I want HD in with my package please. If I pay for Sky Sports 1-3, I don't want to pay extra for HD versions of the same channels. No. No thanks. Which is why I won't go to sky who are effectively charging people twice for one product.

AndyCambs · 15-04-2009, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007

I want HD in with my package please. If I pay for Sky Sports 1-3, I don't want to pay extra for HD versions of the same channels. No. No thanks. Which is why I won't go to sky who are effectively charging people twice for one product.

So you want something for nothing?

**Chris** · 15-04-2009, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007

I want HD in with my package please. If I pay for Sky Sports 1-3, I don't want to pay extra for HD versions of the same channels. No. No thanks. Which is why I won't go to sky who are effectively charging people twice for one product.

They aren't charging twice for the same product. They are different products - one is standard definition and one is high definition. HD brings a lot of additional costs with it and Sky as a commercial enterprise is entitled to recover those costs. It isn't a charity.

akki007 · 15-04-2009, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

So you want something for nothing?

No, I pay for Sky Sports, SD/HD is irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

They aren't charging twice for the same product. They are different products - one is standard definition and one is high definition. HD brings a lot of additional costs with it and Sky as a commercial enterprise is entitled to recover those costs. It isn't a charity.

So they should offer the choice. You pay one price and either get SD or HD. Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 1 HD are the same. Same programmes, same ads, same everything. The consumer should get to choose SD or HD. One price.

What resolution is Bravo broadcast at? What resolution is ITV broadcast at? Is there a difference?

Andrewcrawford23 · 15-04-2009, 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007

No, I pay for Sky Sports, SD/HD is irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

So they should offer the choice. You pay one price and either get SD or HD. Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 1 HD are the same. Same programmes, same ads, same everything. The consumer should get to choose SD or HD. One price.

What resolution is Bravo broadcast at? What resolution is ITV broadcast at? Is there a difference?

I beg to differe hd is a new techonology and it shouldnt be the same price as sd, and htere is a difference s between itv and bravo resoltion i think certainly diffenret between bbc1 and say cbbc

**Chris** · 15-04-2009, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007

So they should offer the choice. You pay one price and either get SD or HD. Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 1 HD are the same. Same programmes, same ads, same everything. The consumer should get to choose SD or HD. One price.

Why should you get one price? All of Sky's channels are bundled or packaged in one way or another. And no, SD and HD are not the same. The HD version of the channel requires more processing and more bandwidth from the satellite. The extra costs are real, not simply some imaginary figure pulled out of a hat to screw more money out of the subs. Granted they may use a single set of HD cameras at the venue and then downsample for the SD broadcast, but those cameras cost money - a lot of money - and Sky has opted to make those people who are able to benefit from the extra detail they capture, pay for it.

Quote:

What resolution is Bravo broadcast at? What resolution is ITV broadcast at? Is there a difference?

What's the relevance of this?

Turkey Machine · 15-04-2009, 16:24

With regard to Sky's HD pricing, I was under the impression if you had Movies and/or Sports, and took HD on top of either or both of those, you only paid the Â£9.75/mo for HD on both, not twice for each package. Does that make any sense?

AndyCambs · 15-04-2009, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

With regard to Sky's HD pricing, I was under the impression if you had Movies and/or Sports, and took HD on top of either or both of those, you only paid the Â£9.75/mo for HD on both, not twice for each package. Does that make any sense?

I might have it wrong - it was only a quick advert I saw out the corner of my eye on television which said "Upgrade to Sky Sports HD for only Â£4.50 per week"
Now Â£4.50 per week is Â£18 per month - which I think is quite expensive.
On that basis, I am quite happy with my SD channels upscaled through the V+ box.

My point is basically that there are numerous posts on this site about the HD channels (indeed with some people it seems something of the Holy Grail). Whilst it's nice to have, I just wondered if people had to pay a premium for the additional HD channels - would they still clamour for it?

I think the answer is no.

Turkey Machine · 15-04-2009, 20:01

That might include the cost of Sky Sports and HD on top of that.

OLD BOY · 15-04-2009, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007

No, I pay for Sky Sports, SD/HD is irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant to you - you are speaking only for yourself. If you are not bothered about HD, the increased price shouldn't worry you. So why are you worried?

Quote:

So they should offer the choice. You pay one price and either get SD or HD. Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 1 HD are the same. Same programmes, same ads, same everything. The consumer should get to choose SD or HD. One price.

What resolution is Bravo broadcast at? What resolution is ITV broadcast at? Is there a difference?

I can see you are not a business man!

AndyCambs · 15-04-2009, 23:20

I see the prices are here

Quote:

Sky+HD: Â£9.75 pm for the HD Pack. Sky Movies/Sports HD channels depend on your Sky TV package. Sky+HD box Â£49 when you take the HD Pack and Sky TV and existing customers sign up to another 12 month minimum term for Sky TV. One Â£49 box per household and not available if you already have SkyHD/Sky+HD box. Sky+HD box price Â£199 for customers not eligible for Â£49 box price (Sky TV and HD Pack subscriptions required). Luxe TV HD, Channel 4 HD and BBC HD are available without subscription. Channel 4 HD requires a viewing card. You need a HD Ready TV to experience the full benefits of Sky+HD.

So if VM were going to follow suit - I'd be quite content with the status quo!

Ignitionnet · 15-04-2009, 23:33

Yep from what I can read you get the HD equivalents as part of the HD pack if you are subscribed to the SD equivalents. If you take SD Sky Sports you get HD Sky Sports as part of the 9.75GBP HD pack charge.

4.50GBP/week I guess would be both the cost of Sky Sports and the HD pack if you have neither already. As an incremental upgrade on top of SD it's actually pretty inexpensive.

---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 23:31 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007

I want HD in with my package please. If I pay for Sky Sports 1-3, I don't want to pay extra for HD versions of the same channels. No. No thanks. Which is why I won't go to sky who are effectively charging people twice for one product.

You pay the monthly HD fee and that's it. It's pretty standard to pay an HD subscription for HD Pay TV, even if it's hidden inside an existing TV package's costs.

frogstamper · 16-04-2009, 01:25

Perfectly explained above by broadbandings, my dad has recently had the Sky HD box installed and all the channels that have an HD capability that he subscribes to in his package are included in the Â£9.75, so therefore the bigger your SD package the more value you receive from your Â£9.75. If VM were to offer a deal along those lines I'd be more than happy to pay the "HD supplement".

AndyCambs · 16-04-2009, 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Yep from what I can read you get the HD equivalents as part of the HD pack if you are subscribed to the SD equivalents. If you take SD Sky Sports you get HD Sky Sports as part of the 9.75GBP HD pack charge.

4.50GBP/week I guess would be both the cost of Sky Sports and the HD pack if you have neither already. As an incremental upgrade on top of SD it's actually pretty inexpensive.

---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 23:31 ----------

You pay the monthly HD fee and that's it. It's pretty standard to pay an HD subscription for HD Pay TV, even if it's hidden inside an existing TV package's costs.

My apologies for the original mis-post. I just caught the advert on the television - and the implication was upgrade to Sky Sports HD for Â£4.50 per week, which implied to me on the advert that it was an additional fee.

Having said that I see that they do offer BBC HD and C4 HD free (C4 HD only with a viewing card though). I'll assume that the pricing model for VM will be along similar lines - and a premium charged if you want full HD service.

Again - I ponder - all these people who clamour for HD - are they willing to pay, and I think the answer is no.