HD charges

[Chodley]

You mean "must"?

Don't think it's worth the price, don't pay. Pretty simple equation.

[prgks]

I too am surprised that UHD has not replaced HD in Sky's business model. I suspect the advent of super fast fibre is going to shake things up as bandwidth is effectively removed as a significant additional cost to content providers.   Ultimately, it will be broadband based competition that will force Sky to make HD the minimum standard. I predict not greater than 24 months of SD remain - I barely watch Sky channels and am considering my future options (two providers of FTTP have installed infrastructure in my street this year). I also predict satellite reception will be less than 50% of the market within 2-3 years.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@prgks wrote:

  Ultimately, it will be broadband based competition that will force Sky to make HD the minimum standard. I predict not greater than 24 months of SD remain

---

Again, that's conflating two different things.  Sky cannot refuse SD channels a listing in their EPG, and many, particularly with small audiences for niche content will remain carrying SD only.  Continuing to charge an 'HD' subscription supplement for non-free-to-air HD channel reception on satellite receivers is a commercial decision for Sky unrelated to the EPG issue or the continued carriage of SD content over satellite or broadband..

[prgks]

Dear @TimmyBGood 

I have not conflated anything. Sky is a key culprit in remaining SD content (most UK public service providers have gone HD and usually offer non-linear access too) . Other remaining SD content providers will find it cheaper to go HD (or UHD) when content is streamed online - because bandwidth is greater/cheaper (and content can be non-linear).  Yes - servers will increase in size, but they are anyway.  Sky's probable future may be in acting as a content aggregator rather than competing head on with streaming providers - but time will tell.

[nigea99]

---

@prgks wrote:

Dear @TimmyBGood 

I have not conflated anything. Sky is a key culprit in remaining SD content (most UK public service providers have gone HD and usually offer non-linear access too) . Other remaining SD content providers will find it cheaper to go HD (or UHD) when content is streamed online - because bandwidth is greater/cheaper (and content can be non-linear).  Yes - servers will increase in size, but they are anyway.  Sky's probable future may be in acting as a content aggregator rather than competing head on with streaming providers - but time will tell.

---

hi @prgks 

SKY are only responsible for their own channels 

I think you maybe assuming that SKY has the responsibility for the production, uplink & transmission of all the channels that you see in the EPG (or even part of the paid subscription) when that is not the case.

For example UKTV (owned by BBC Studios) is responsible for it's own channels and whilst most of it's channels (Gold, Alibi, Dave, Yesterday, W - which BTW  only became available in HD last year) are available in HD, a couple are not - e.g Drama, Eden 

Of course Satellite bandwith/costs may be part of the issue but that is not down to SKY (SES owning & running the Satellites used by Freesat & SKY & others)  

Edit : Maybe I should add that not all catch up apps are yet full HD - For example All4, My5 & UKTV Play

[prgks]

Nope - I understand how Sky works. As you point out, most content providers are moving to HD - QED, so why maintain a charge for HD?  It is suprising how much superusers' responses read like Sky corporate replies and assume everyone else is an idiot.  I get it - Sky still has some leverage as the gatekeeper but time marches on and subscribers will too.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@prgks wrote: Other remaining SD content providers will find it cheaper to go HD (or UHD) when content is streamed online - because bandwidth is greater/cheaper (and content can be non-linear).  

---

Yes, channels could choose to do so, but as a regulated EPG provider Sky is simply not permitted to influence that decision in any way: they are obliged to provide equal access to their satellite listings.

Ofcom has concluded that, in order to secure that the providers of EPGs licensed by Ofcom do not enter into or maintain any arrangements or engage in any practice that Ofcom considers would be prejudicial to fair and effective competition in the provision of the licensed radio or television services or of connected services as defined in section 316 of the Act, EPG providers should comply with the provisions set out in this section.

27. In particular, EPG licensees are required:

a) to ensure that any agreement with broadcasters for the provision of an EPG service is made on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms;

"Code of practice on electronic programme guides" (.pdf) 

[prgks]

@TimmyBGood and @nigea99 

I really DO understand the Sky business model and Sky's EPG obligations. I feel you are responding to what you hope/thought I wrote rather than my actual observations. Until very recently if I chose one of several Sky channels in HD I would get a message entreating me to upgrade my subscription. I was opining that SD's days are numbered. This in no way suggested that Sky does not behave equitably nor that SD only content providers should be blocked - it was simply an observation based on economic and technological near future realities.

[Chodley]

@prgks  "Until very recently if I chose one of several Sky channels in HD I would get a message entreating me to upgrade my subscription."

So you don't have HD? What happens on those channels now then?

[prgks]

Now - it appears that for most Sky channels there don't seem to be separate HD versions - and I can view them despite not paying for HD.

[Chodley]

@prgks  I guess you mean don't have separate SD versions? So it sounds like Sky are leading the way in making HD standard then? 😉

[debbiesharron]

@Chodley let's hope so ,

SD in my estimation is just an old excuse to keep charging for HD 

[Mark39]

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

@Chodley let's hope so ,

SD in my estimation is just an old excuse to keep charging for HD 

---

Pretty sure they would keep charging anyway, even if the HD charge wasn't separately specified.....

[Chodley]

Yep. How much is HD? £8? If only half Sky's subscribers pay for it (lowball imho) that's about £100m a month they'd lose. Not going to do that voluntarily.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Chodley wrote:

Not going to do that voluntarily.

---

I make it more like £40,000,000 a month.  Comcast stockholders aren't exactly feeling happy about Sky at the moment though, so giving up half a billion dollars or so in annual revenue probably wouldn't go down well...

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/comment/comcast-takes-hit-as-prospects-darken-for-sky/