HD charges

[Sutton86]

HD technology came to the UK in 2005. Thats 17 years ago and yet Sky charge extra to have this as an addition. Do you think it's about time that Sky and other providers perhaps make HD a standard product especially as technology is advancing in today's time?

[Daniel0210]

@Sutton86 

What about poorer off customers who can't afford a HD capable TV? 

[Sutton86]

You can still watch HD through a standard TV that isn't HD compatible...

[Daniel0210]

@Sutton86 

The point I'm making is why would they be willing to pay a few pounds more per month for a benefit they have no chance of seeing: ie better picture quality. 

[Sutton86]

You misunderstand my point. It's dated technology so the standard should now be HD rather than having HD as an upgrade. 

[SKY1992bf]

@Sutton86  It might be dated but Sky still see it as a premium service and are within their right to charge if they wish, and they are not alone bt still have some sports packages that don't include hd as standard 

[caesarome]

Sky will know how many subscribers don't take the HD package and at present there must be enough for them to continue with these channels plus there is the fact that not all channels are available in HD.

[TimmyBGood]

@Sutton86 

If we assume around two thirds of Sky households pay for HD (probably an underestimate) then even at only five pounds per month that's something like half a billion pounds a year of revenue (because numbers get very big very quickly when millions of subscriptions are involved).  Do you think 

a) Sky (and Comcast stockholders) would happily see their income drop by that much?

b) Pricing of the baseline subscription would increase for everyone to cover the difference?

[nigea99]

As others have pointed out - if HD was included it wouldn't actually be free - it would just be incorporated into the base price thus raising  costs for everyone.

Of course, probably the vast majority of subscribers will now have HD  or UHD capable TVs but there are some who are still usng smaller non HD Tvs & those people probably cannot afford or just not want to a) upgrade their TV and/or b) pay a higher base subscription for something they can't use

As much as many would like it as standard, at the moment with so many living costs increasing, I think there will be many people who are  currently really glad it is optional and thus can reduce their costs by not having it.

As you mention,  SKY is not the only subscription service that charges for HD. - even with Netflix you have to take out the Standard package rather than the Basic package to get HD 

[Anonymous]

---

@Sutton86 wrote:

HD technology came to the UK in 2005. Thats 17 years ago and yet Sky charge extra to have this as an addition. Do you think it's about time that Sky and other providers perhaps make HD a standard product especially as technology is advancing in today's time?

---

In absolute honesty, it's about options. Some people don't watch HD, or don't see a difference. Also, people seemingly don't want to be forced into paying extra if subscriptions change. 

It's also for Sky to say their basic packs* (Sky Signature/ Sky Ultimate TV) are from €39 per month, instead of €49 per month. (Sky HD is €10) 

(* Excluding Sky Q Lite)

[Chrisee]

@Sutton86 Sky have its called Sky Glass where the basic package includes HD programming however there is a premium for UHD. 

[nigea99]

@Anonymous 

FYI I am guessing your post yesterday got caught in the notorious spam filter and it seems has now been released  🙂

[LGUser]

The box can take an HD signal and downconvert it to SD. I've tried it on my Sky Q box.

Also, you cannot buy a TV now that does not support HD. If you have a TV that does not support HD, then you haver a really old flickering (eyestrain and headaches) tube TV.

[Skull+Treaty]

---

@LGUser wrote:

If you have a TV that does not support HD, then you haver a really old flickering (eyestrain and headaches) tube TV.

---

Or a rear projection TV

*edit, seems that rear projection TVs were capable of 1080p resolution. 

[Steve+D+1]

I totaly agree, the reason Sky and other providers charge for HD is because some customers still think they should have the option, Sky make a vast amount of revenue from advertisments, should we as subscibers have to watch 20min an hour of adds.