HD charges

[daveNOS]

@Chodley They clearly where not aimed at anyone who has replied, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

An issue I have is that more channels could be added if SD channels were removed (provided there's a HD alternative).

You're assuming there are more channels to add: I'd suggest the opposite is the case going forward.  It's increasingly unlikely any newly launched media operation would even consider paying satellite data transit fees to get their content in front of eyeballs*: that's a really 1990s distribution concept.

*Interestingly the last two notable additions (GB News and TalkTV) went for 'broadcast' largely because this gave them perceived credibility as a source rather than getting any viewers that way: their more controversial output cut into tiny chunks on social media is much more important to them financially than their satellite viewing figures

[debbiesharron]

@Chodley

Each one was a different answer to different post , 

Thankyou for someone taking the time out to see that 

[Chodley]

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

@Chodley

Each one was a different answer to different post , 

Thankyou for someone taking the time out to see that 

---

👍 This button is really useful. Never used to work on a phone but does now

 

[Annie+UK]

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

@Chodley

Each one was a different answer to different post , 

Thankyou for someone taking the time out to see that 

---

@debbiesharron With no indication which post they were replying to thus making them impossible to follow 😞

You can use @ with the users name (this will inform the user that someone has tagged them in a post) or just type the users name or give the post number then people will be able to follow

[Chodley]

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

@Chodley

Each one was a different answer to different post , 

Thankyou for someone taking the time out to see that 

---

@debbiesharron With no indication which post they were replying to thus making them impossible to follow 😞

You can use @ with the users name (this will inform the user that someone has tagged them in a post) or just type the users name or give the post number then people will be able to follow

---

yeah but like I said, people shouldn't need to know they have to do that. I don't think I've used any other forum software in the last 10 years which doesn't default to some sort of auto-indication of replying.

[Annie+UK]

---

@Chodley wrote:

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

@Chodley

Each one was a different answer to different post , 

Thankyou for someone taking the time out to see that 

---

@debbiesharron With no indication which post they were replying to thus making them impossible to follow 😞

You can use @ with the users name (this will inform the user that someone has tagged them in a post) or just type the users name or give the post number then people will be able to follow

---

yeah but like I said, people shouldn't need to know they have to do that. I don't think I've used any other forum software in the last 10 years which doesn't default to some sort of auto-indication of replying.

---

We have to work with the tools we are given, maybe you need to visit more forums 🙂 as this is not an isolated thing in my experience

[Chodley]

@Annie+UK We do but then we should all appreciate when someone has been caught out by it.

Used quite a few but have to get some work done at SOME point. 😆

[Anonymous]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

An issue I have is that more channels could be added if SD channels were removed (provided there's a HD alternative).

You're assuming there are more channels to add: I'd suggest the opposite is the case going forward.  It's increasingly unlikely any newly launched media operation would even consider paying satellite data transit fees to get their content in front of eyeballs*: that's a really 1990s distribution concept.

*Interestingly the last two notable additions (GB News and TalkTV) went for 'broadcast' largely because this gave them perceived credibility as a source rather than getting any viewers that way: their more controversial output cut into tiny chunks on social media is much more important to them financially than their satellite viewing figures

---

I was saying Sky could add Internet channels instead of satellite channels where the user could press the Red Button to access. Also smaller channels that want to be accessible on satellite could be added for a reduced cost from Sky.

[rscott]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

An issue I have is that more channels could be added if SD channels were removed (provided there's a HD alternative).

You're assuming there are more channels to add: I'd suggest the opposite is the case going forward.  It's increasingly unlikely any newly launched media operation would even consider paying satellite data transit fees to get their content in front of eyeballs*: that's a really 1990s distribution concept.

*Interestingly the last two notable additions (GB News and TalkTV) went for 'broadcast' largely because this gave them perceived credibility as a source rather than getting any viewers that way: their more controversial output cut into tiny chunks on social media is much more important to them financially than their satellite viewing figures

---

I was saying Sky could add Internet channels instead of satellite channels where the user could press the Red Button to access. Also smaller channels that want to be accessible on satellite could be added for a reduced cost from Sky.

---

Adding streamed channels to Q is highly unlikely - there's nothing in the EPG policy to cater for them and there's also the difficult issue around actual delivery of content.

If a channel is listed on the EPG, then the average viewer assumes Sky are responsible for making sure that channel works (be it the dish, box, connections,etc). With IP delivery, either the channel would be responsible, which blurs the support boundaries, or they'd have to pay for Sky to take care of that.

There can also be e rights issues around streaming Vs recording, as evidenced by some of the content issues on Q.

It's all slightly irrelevant anyway as there are free HD slots on the guide, so if a new channel wanted to launch, they could.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I was saying Sky could add Internet channels instead of satellite channels where the user could press the Red Button to access. Also smaller channels that want to be accessible on satellite could be added for a reduced cost from Sky.

The 'cost from Sky' is a standard listing fee: satellite data costs are paid to SES (who actually own the orbiting platforms which Sky dishes point at) and the groundstation infrastructure used to get data up there: that's the expensive bit.

As @rscott indicates, there's currently no mechanism to mix streaming channels into a satellite (or DTTV) EPG, and because EPGs are regulated that's as much a legislative challenge as it is a technical one.

[2dawks92]

Completely agree with you (even if half of those relying don't seem to). HD is now standard tech with the clock on it's time already ticking.

Not to mention that sky charges £8 a month to watch the same programmes a bit sharper! I can get Disney+ for that!

[Mark39]

---

@2dawks92 wrote:

Completely agree with you (even if half of those relying don't seem to). HD is now standard tech with the clock on it's time already ticking.

Not to mention that sky charges £8 a month to watch the same programmes a bit sharper! I can get Disney+ for that!

---

No idea who you're agreeing with, but the likelihood is you would pay for it one way or another even if Sky stopped charging you specifically for the HD add-on. 

[Chodley]

@2dawks92 HD uses a lot more expensive satellite bandwidth than SD. And it's not just a bit sharper.

[2dawks92]

Good point. It just be great value then