topic Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD? in Archive

Why are +1 channels not in HD?

Stephen+Mourton — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:00:17 GMT

If a program is broadcast in HD, why is it still not in HD an hour later when played on the +1 channel?

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

pjhaahl — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:01:41 GMT

@Stephen+Mourton

+1 channels are SD Channels. They aren't allocated enough transponder bandwidth to show HD programming.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

Stephen+Mourton — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:09:12 GMT

Thanks @pjhaahl Do you know why enough bandwidth is not allocated to them?

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

TimmyBGood — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:11:42 GMT

@Stephen+Mourton

Cost saving by the channel owner: HD channels are more expensive to shift over a satellite uplink than SD just because of the extra data involved in the higher resolution picture. Frankly, +1 channels are now a historical anomaly anyway.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

pjhaahl — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:11:20 GMT

@Stephen+Mourton

Because they are intended to be SD channels and satellite bandwidth is extremely expensive. Also satellite bandwidth is finite. Squeezing in all the channels takes some doing as it is.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

PandJ2020 — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:36:57 GMT

@TimmyBGood wrote:
Frankly, +1 channels are now a historical anomaly anyway.

Yup, 'catch up' services via Internet download. But the broadcaster does decide what's available.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

Mark39 — Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:59:14 GMT

@TimmyBGood wrote:

Frankly, +1 channels are now a historical anomaly anyway.

Agreed. With the ability to record and the catch up services available there's no real need for the +1 channels any more.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

Stephen+Mourton — Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:05:19 GMT

Thanks for the replies. I can now understand better why it is done. I have no knowledge of satellite technology or indeed television technology. All I know is I rarely ever watch +1 channels because of the poor quality picture, and would prefer to wait for it on catch-up.

Am I alone in that? If not then the viewing figures for these channels will be lower than they should be, so would that not be self defeating? Let's face it SD is so out of date technology why don't they save even more money and broadcast them in black and white? (That was a little tongue in cheek)

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

TimmyBGood — Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:33:54 GMT

@Stephen+Mourton wrote:

Let's face it SD is so out of date technology

True, but it has a suprisingly loyal following, judging from the number of posts to the Sky+ and Sky Q forums by people who don't have the HD supplement as part of their subscription. The addition of 'free' SD Box Sets in 'Signature' may even increase its use.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

xenon81 — Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:45:49 GMT

@pjhaahl wrote:
@Stephen+Mourton

Because they are intended to be SD channels and satellite bandwidth is extremely expensive. Also satellite bandwidth is finite. Squeezing in all the channels takes some doing as it is.

There is a lot of unused space on the Astra 28.2 satellites that Sky use that could be used in future for more HD or even UHD channels.

In Italy Sky One, Sky Atlantic and two of the Sky Cinema channels have HD +1 channels. I don't think these will ever launch in the UK however.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

pjhaahl — Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:02:23 GMT

@xenon81 wrote:
There is a lot of unused space on the Astra 28.2 satellites that Sky use that could be used in future for more HD or even UHD channels.

There is, however a lot of that is due do with redundancy. To ensure reliable service Astra need to be able to move channels to backups in the event of transponder or even Satellite failure.

I agree, I don't see anyone introducing HD+1 channels at this stage. I just don't believe any broadcaster would see enough of a potential return to justify the expense when they do their sums.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

Stephen+Mourton — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:19:28 GMT

@TimmyBGood "True, but it has a suprisingly loyal following, judging from the number of posts to the Sky+ and Sky Q forums by people who don't have the HD supplement as part of their subscription."

I am not sure it's because SD has a loyal following, it is because it's not as expensive, there is a difference. This harks back to similar posts on the SD/HD channels, there is a strong case to be made that in this day and age 15 years after HD was introduced and when it is not possible to but a none HD tv that Sky is still charging for it.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

oj01 — Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:46:32 GMT

there is a strong case to be made that in this day and age 15 years after HD was introduced and when it is not possible to but a none HD tv that Sky is still charging for it.

Why would they when millions of people are seemingly happy enough to pay for it.

Even, if and when it did become part of the 'standard' package, all that would happen is that the bottom line would be raised to include the cost of HD in the base price, so that everyone would be paying for it whether they wanted to or not.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

Mark39 — Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:22:24 GMT

@oj01 wrote:

Even, if and when it did become part of the 'standard' package, all that would happen is that the bottom line would be raised to include the cost of HD in the base price, so that everyone would be paying for it whether they wanted to or not.

Exactly. The HD charge is just income as far as Sky is concerned, and they're not about to reduce that.

Re: Why are +1 channels not in HD?

PATV+Scunthorpe — Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:00:01 GMT

The only HD variant of a +1 channel I can think of, was Channel 4 +1 HD, however it was a Freeview exclusive and has now closed due to the closure of COM8.