HD charges

[TimmyBGood]

@xenon81 

Sky are explicitly stating the move away from an SD-only Sky+ box will have no extra cost.

Of course that doesn't mean they won't try to upsell the Q subscription...

[TimmyBGood]

What to do if you’re affected

You can upgrade to Sky Q at no extra cost. Your new box will be installed by one of our engineers on a date that suits you.

There’ll be no change to your Sky TV package or pricing.

You can then watch all the BBC channels in HD – including all local programmes.

https://www.sky.com/help/articles/bbcupgrade 

[debbiesharron]

I believe this to be very true , You really shouldn't have to pay for HD, You have to pay a TV license and HD should not be chargeable, Considering HD started in 2005, You should not have to pay for the latest Picture , I think it is very wrong 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

You have to pay a TV license and HD should not be chargeable

---

That would be why 'free-to-air' services funded by the Licence Fee do not require the HD add-on.

Whether Sky should charge for reception of HD versions of other channels is a separate debate to television licensing.

[debbiesharron]

Whichever way you look at it ... ITS A CON 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

ITS A CON 

---

It's a business decision.  Presumably the HD charge could be removed as a supplement and the equivalent revenue raised in higher baseline subscription cost smuggled though during the annual price increase, but that would seem to be rather more of a 'con' than letting people choose.

[daveNOS]

@debbiesharron I fail to see how Sky charging for HD and delivering it is a con? Every provider still charges for it so I fail to see why Sky doing so is such a big issue.

[nolte]

if sky did not charge extra for hd but included it in the cost, it would end up that those who don't want the hd channels would be subsidising those who do want the hd channels.

I don't think that is fair on those who don't want hd chargea.

As you said, it has been around since 2005 so after 17/18 years, those who don't want to pay for Hd have made up their mind on the subject and whether hd is value for money.

Those not upgraded to hd would more likely feel sky were adding cost, rather than value to their bills.

[Mark39]

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

Whichever way you look at it ... ITS A CON 

---

Whichever way you look at it, you'd pay for it one way or another.

There's no 'con'. If you don't want to pay for it, don't. 

[Justin15]

You walk into a car show room and buy a car only to be told it comes with wooden wheels, if you want rubber ones Sir it'll cost you extra.

Complete joke to even be transmitting low-resolution image in this day and age . Charging for HD is rediculise, I totally agree.

At least their not transmitting in black and white with a £5 charge for colour... 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Justin15 wrote:

Complete joke to even be transmitting low-resolution image in this day and age .

---

Worth considering that a great many channels listed in the EPG won't have the viewing figures to be able to afford the additional satellite data transit cost to shift HD (which is paid to SES, not Sky) or don't even have HD source material in the first place.  Sky is not responsible for the transmission resolution of any non-Sky branded channel: that's a choice made by individual channel owners

As noted above, Sky doesn't have to charge extra for HD reception: they could put up the baseline subscription instead.

[Justin15]

Poit taken however...

Also, worth considering that the channels listed in the electronic program guide that don’t have the viewing figures are in that position because they are just filler channels that no one watches. So losing them won’t be the end of the world.
Point is sky charge for HD on their channels when it should be part of a standard package. Why is it ok to charge for an antiquated service like HD.
Why stop at HD, why not send everything in Mono, charge for better sound quality, only send black and white, extra for colour. What I'm getting at is HD is old, set it as standard and charge for UHD/4K a reasonable new feature.

[rscott]

---

@Justin15 wrote:

Poit taken however...

Also, worth considering that the channels listed in the electronic program guide that don’t have the viewing figures are in that position because they are just filler channels that no one watches. So losing them won’t be the end of the world.
Point is sky charge for HD on their channels when it should be part of a standard package. Why is it ok to charge for an antiquated service like HD.
Why stop at HD, why not send everything in Mono, charge for better sound quality, only send black and white, extra for colour. What I'm getting at is HD is old, set it as standard and charge for UHD/4K a reasonable new feature.

---

That's exactly what they've done when they launched Stream/Glass - the base pack includes HD and they don't support the SD simulcasts.

However, to roll the HD charge into the base Q/Sky+HD pack would mean a considerable increase in price, which wouldn't go down well , especially at the moment.

[Mark39]

@Justin15 be realistic. Sky earn an income by charging for HD. They're not going to give up the income. What would happen is that what they're currently charging for the HD add-on would be made up elsewhere - probably by adding an equivalent amount to the cost of the base package. So you would still be paying for it and it would also deny those who don't want HD the option of not paying for it.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Justin15 wrote:

Also, worth considering that the channels listed in the electronic program guide that don’t have the viewing figures are in that position because they are just filler channels that no one watches. So losing them won’t be the end of the world.

---

As a regulated EPG provider Sky cannot deny an EPG slot to any channel which has a UK broadcasting licence, pays the listing fee and complies with the Broadcasting Code.

'losing them' is not an option.