0

Discussion topic: Have we got to pay for hd and uhd

Reply
This message was authored by: Poppy2107

Have we got to pay for hd and uhd

Just wondering if I have to pay for sky hd and uhd

Reply

All Replies

This message was authored by: PandJ2020

Re: Have we got to pay for hd and uhd

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@Poppy2107 wrote:

Just wondering if I have to pay for sky hd and uhd


No.

 

But without a UHD sub you won't be able to watch/download UHD material.

Without a HD sub then you won't be able to watch/download certain HD material.

I am just another Sky customer and my views are my own even if you don't like the answers
This message was authored by: Daniel0210

Re: Have we got to pay for hd and uhd

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@Poppy2107 wrote:

Just wondering if I have to pay for sky hd and uhd


@Poppy2107 

No, not if you want to only watch in SD. If you want to watch HD channels you'll need the HD add-on. If you want to watch anything in UHD you'll need the HD and UHD add-ons. 


▪️I AM NOT A SKY EMPLOYEE (undercover or otherwise)▪️
NOTE: I only provide help on the forum boards so Direct Messaging is switched off

▫️
Sky customer since 2001
with:
Sky Q | Sky Superfast Broadband | Sky Talk | Sky Mobile

▪️▪️▪️▪️▪️
MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR
This message was authored by: plantpot

Re: Have we got to pay for hd and uhd

I honestly can't believe they're still charging for this. 

 

Their headline prices are attractive but then once  you make it usable it's 2-4x the initial cost 

This message was authored by: TimmyBGood

Re: Have we got to pay for hd and uhd

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@plantpot wrote:

I honestly can't believe they're still charging for this. 


Glass and Stream don't require a subscription supplement for HD.

 

If only half of satellite platform users pay for HD that's something like £500,000,000 a year loss in revenue if the charge was dropped, which I suspect Comcast Corporation stockholders might be unhappy about.

 


@plantpot wrote:

 

Their headline prices are attractive but then once  you make it usable it's 2-4x the initial cost 

 


Yup: that's been a successful marketing strategy for over three decades.

* * * * * * *

Sky Glass 55" (on ethernet) & two Stream Pucks (one ethernet / one WiFi)
BT Halo 3+ Ultrafast FTTP (500Mbs), BT Smart Hub 2
This message was authored by: plantpot

Re: Have we got to pay for hd and uhd

Fair point on Stream/Glass and HD. I came here to look into that but the hardware sounds terrible with Stream and I am not interested in Glass. 

 

It's funny you mentioned 3 decades - and since this is the Q forum... Sky's heyday was the late 90s and into the 2000s. I didn't have Sky at home when I was younger, and I remember how awesome it was to go round to a friends house on a Sunday evening to catch the Simpsons (before the C4 days even) or a movie that wouldn't be on 'normal' TV for at least another year.

 

But with the rise of a vast array of on demand content, substantailly more free to air channels, smart TVs, and so on...getting access to the entertainment we want has never been easier.

 

I cancelled my Q subscription a while back after taking it out when I moved in to a new property. They wanted to increase my price to over £60 a month for what was just glorified Freeview with Multiroom and HD. This was not inclusive of broadband. 

 

They charge a lot for multi room and yet The Sky Q mini multiroom box was terrible - an inferior product which was laggy and did not support 4k output.

 

HD is not a premium service. 

 

The discussion with the Sky agent was borderline desperation on their part. Suggesting I remove multiroom and take HD off my package 'if cost is a problem' - folks want decent value for money, not to feel ripped off and locked in while they are free to increase prices every year, especially when the extras are things as ubiquitous as HD. 

 

I can honestly say, cancelling the service and saving the money has had literally zero negative impact on what we enjoy watching. 

 

I really feel Sky have completely failed to adapt to the seismic shift in the way folks consume content and charge way too much for what is just a basic level of service. The nickel and diming is quite something. You can get almost all of the basic package with free to air and a smart TV  with on demand apps for £0 per month. Adding one of Netflix/Prime/Disney (or even several) is still way way less. Yet they are even now doing "ad free" as an extra 🤣

 

I do however think that the current deal on essentials with broadband is pretty solid, but the premium demanded for multiroom makes a good deal turn bad. 

 

I'd love to see a simplification of the bundles but I've no interest in giving them my business with their current model. These forums are littered with customers complaining about poor performance and spurious charges.

This message was authored by: TimmyBGood

Re: Have we got to pay for hd and uhd

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@plantpot wrote:

 

I'd love to see a simplification of the bundles but I've no interest in giving them my business with their current model. 


Q isn't going to change now: it will be gone in a few years.  Glass/Stream was explicitly supposed to be a much simpler structure without revolving price changes, but that intention didn't actually emerge in reality.

 

Stream works for most households: by definition they aren't posting to support forums.

* * * * * * *

Sky Glass 55" (on ethernet) & two Stream Pucks (one ethernet / one WiFi)
BT Halo 3+ Ultrafast FTTP (500Mbs), BT Smart Hub 2
Reply