HD charges

[Laing1]

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

How about Try Seeing It From The Customers  Point Of View 

---

@debbiesharron so what about customers who have sight issues and having HD would not make a difference to their viewing If Sky include HD into the base package and increase the price is that fair to them 

[Skyuser1981]

The charge for HD just needs to go away in the same manner that the charge for Sky+ went away. Sky are gonna keep hiking their charges come what may if they wanna keep charging premuims they need to release new features. Ultra HD was a new feature and thus justified a higher charge but 720p  (Sky HD) has been around since 2006, thats 17 years they've been charging extra for a better quality picture than literal standard Def

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Skyuser1981 wrote:

they need to release new features.

---

They really don't though: they need to generate enough profit for Comcast to keep those stockholders happy, or face been spun off to another group of investors.  The basic business is reasonably sound (albeit with the end of satelllite broadcasting looking inevitable): it's just that Comcast hugely overpaid through bidding against Disney.

[Mark39]

---

@Skyuser1981 wrote:

The charge for HD just needs to go away in the same manner that the charge for Sky+ went away. Sky are gonna keep hiking their charges come what may if they wanna keep charging premuims they need to release new features. Ultra HD was a new feature and thus justified a higher charge but 720p  (Sky HD) has been around since 2006, thats 17 years they've been charging extra for a better quality picture than literal standard Def

---

Pointless pontification. You can dream up as many arguments and as much 'justification' as you like, but what you conveniently ignore is the income the charge generates for Sky. The fact that Sky have increased the list price for the HD add-on from 1 April is an indicator that it's not going to go away any time soon, no matter how much you think it 'needs' to.

[debbiesharron]

This to me just seems to say if Sky were to stop HD Charges ( bearing in mind there's also UHD Charges ) ,By saying Sky would ultimately have to then Increase prices in other areas to make up for Sky's loss of profit ! Effectively putting that in people's minds as a way and means of opposition coming forward because they would feel it would ultimately higher their bills , That's pretty much a very clever and tactical answer and a way and means of threatening people with MORE Price hikes , In regards to Asda , Wilkos and various other Cheaper Supermarkets , I have known people to travel Miles to Shop to theses Supermarkets rather than the More expensive type who are simply Too Money Obsesed and ultimately end up having to close down because people are not in a position to pay the extra and will find other means for which they value and respect , 

[Skyuser1981]

So to cut a long story short you think its fine that Sky are treating something thats pretty much ubiquitous on every other platform as a premuim product thats worth an extra 8 pounds a month? I'm not even talking about 1080p even 720p would be a vast improvement over watching standard def which was designed for tube tvs on a flat screen LCD. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@debbiesharron wrote:

Effectively putting that in people's minds as a way and means of opposition coming forward because they would feel it would ultimately higher their bills , That's pretty much a very clever and tactical answer and a way and means of threatening people with MORE Price hikes

---

I seriously doubt any speculation here has much impact on either Grant Way, Isleworth or JFK Boulevard, Philadelphia.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Skyuser1981 wrote:

So to cut a long story short you think its fine that Sky are treating something thats pretty much ubiquitous on every other platform as a premuim product thats worth an extra 8 pounds a month?

---

'fine' or not, that's their current business model.  It will work for them until it doesn't.

[Mark39]

---

@Skyuser1981 wrote:

So to cut a long story short you think its fine that Sky are treating something thats pretty much ubiquitous on every other platform as a premuim product thats worth an extra 8 pounds a month?

---

More pointless irrelevance. You're still ignoring the income it generates.

[Skyuser1981]

Totally agree, the cost of the bill goes up and up no matter what, when HD was first introduced on Sky the boxes cost hundreds of pounds hardly anyone had a HD ready TV let alone a 1080p TV and I don't think three were any over the air HD broadcasts, or very few if there were, it was a different time I mean you could still buy tube TV's, Sky had a lot of infrastucture to upgrade and setting it up was gonna be costly, but all that was nearly 20 years ago now. 

[Skyuser1981]

I'm actively choosing to disregard it, thats the difference. its had its day just like charging extra for Sky plus came to an end. they can carry on charging for UHD but 720p should be standard now, I mean heck even the local news on the BBC is in HD now!😆

[Mark39]

---

@Skyuser1981 wrote:

I'm actively choosing to disregard it, thats the difference. its had its day just like charging extra for Sky plus came to an end. they can carry on charging for UHD but 720p should be standard now, I mean heck even the local news on the BBC is in HD now!😆

---

'Head in sand' then. 😁

[Skyuser1981]

Nope. I just think that charging extra for what is now the absolute basic standard forever and ever is not an acceptable business practive. maybe they should charge extra for stereo sound? or colour? 

[debbiesharron]

And Volume 😅

[d2h]

---

@Skyuser1981 wrote:

Nope. I just think that charging extra for what is now the absolute basic standard forever and ever is not an acceptable business practive. maybe they should charge extra for stereo sound? or colour? 

---

Or for the fast forward button to work during adver... oh, hang on...