• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

HD £10 Rip Off

Nellybee

Standard Member
:lesson: Anyone else thinking like me that the £10 charge is a rip off .Why do we have skysports hd most of the programs aint even in hd .Surely there must be some sort of rule against saying its a hd channel when clearly it is not .Maybee it should be taken up with the European court about missleading custommers .When will there be more channels no one nos not even sky .So come on sky get your finger out after all you are charging us for a service that only half exists :lease: :lease:
 
N

NEIL J JONES

Guest
Yes the biggest con is SKY1HD, I dont even class this as a HD channel. With Sports HD at least the SD material does look a bit cleaner.

But the biggest rip off is the 299 they charge for the box. Not so bad if your upgrading from a digibox with no Sky + functionality but if you upgrade from a Sky + box your paying out 299 for a couple of new bits of small hardware inside the box. But I must say the outer case design looks cool so I suppose thats where the money goes. :eek:
 

oldman100

Active Member
I totally agree the £10 extra is a total rip-off but I only have myself to blame as I signed on the dotted line, perhaps a tad more research before hand wouldn't have gone a miss. But crikey I assumed Sky HD has been out long enough now to offer a reasonable package :oops: big mistake.

Fair enough a couple of factors helped persuade me, the half price offer for starters. Also I thought what is the point of having two HD tv's in the house with neither of them playing anything in HD with the exception of the odd game or two on my 360.

So here I am living the Sky HD dream :boring:
 

Starburst

Distinguished Member
:lesson: Anyone else thinking like me that the £10 charge is a rip off .Why do we have skysports hd most of the programs aint even in hd .Surely there must be some sort of rule against saying its a hd channel when clearly it is not .Maybee it should be taken up with the European court about missleading custommers .When will there be more channels no one nos not even sky .So come on sky get your finger out after all you are charging us for a service that only half exists :lease: :lease:





Not when you know all the facts before buying into the system.
Is is good value, well that's a totally different question and the question in regards to a simulcast HD versions of SKY1 against a dedicated SKY1HD was being asked on these forums long before SKY launched.
Some people claim they would prefer SKY1HD only broadcasting 3 or 4 hours a day regardless of the fact some also claim that SD upscaled by SKY in many cases looks better than the same programme on SKY1, it's value once again is subjective.

The European court is perhaps an over reaction, the ASA or OFCOM would be the place to start but please point to where SKY clearly said that SKY1HD was 100% native HD?
There has to be consumer responsibility to do their homework before parting with their cash and if there fundemental issues with advertising then there are legitimate steps for the consumer to take.

As for channels well SKY can't predict what the dozens of other broadcasters are going to do and again you knew what you were paying for, if you hoped or expected more HD channels then perhaps waiting for the early adopter to take the hit was the safer path.
 

colham

Active Member
Yep, the £10 is a bit much, especially with the rest of the sub, but then you knew that when you signed up.

I wouldn't have if I didn't get the box for £150. And I'm kind of hoping the £10 fee will get abolished before too long.

They could do with getting their finger out with the content though. I'm only really in it for the Movies and Sports, so DiscoveryHD etc is only getting used for the wow factor.

They should have all the Movies in HD for a kick off, and swap out your standard channels for HD equivalents.

Would be interesting to see how long the BBC HD trial will continue since theres looking like no future in free-to-air HD.
 

Starburst

Distinguished Member
But the biggest rip off is the 299 they charge for the box. Not so bad if your upgrading from a digibox with no Sky + functionality but if you upgrade from a Sky + box your paying out 299 for a couple of new bits of small hardware inside the box. But I must say the outer case design looks cool so I suppose thats where the money goes. :eek:





Back in May 2006 I was shocked how cheap the STB was especially when H.264 chips were in short supply and FTA HD mpeg4 boxes (single tuner no hard drive) were only marginally cheaper and there were no HD DVR's offered at all.
A year later the £100 "subsidy" SKY claimed must have been absorbed by the market and certainly being able to buy SKY+ HD on the open market for less than SKY proves that but SKY have always sold hardware more expensive than retail.
Don't forget Thomson would have got a contract with price levels fixed at certain points, they may still be paid at X price even though component prices to them have fallen.

We may see some change when Amstrad introduce their model after all I guarantee they will be supplying units cheaper than Thomson and then in turn will pressure Thomson.
 

Starburst

Distinguished Member
They should have all the Movies in HD for a kick off, and swap out your standard channels for HD equivalents.

Would be interesting to see how long the BBC HD trial will continue since theres looking like no future in free-to-air HD.




Yeah that would have been good but the 4 satellites that provide capacity for the SKY services (and others) simply can not support HD channels in that number while maintaining the current SD service.

The future of FTA HD is a political action, given the go ahead and a reasonable government the future is bright and well the restrictions are only on DTT since cable and satellite will be fine for mainstream HD well before analogue shutdown.
 

RSVdaz

Banned
yeah i'm now thinking its a rip off..tbh i only got cos the black box looks better in my av set up!
i am also shocked that stuff on hd channels may not be hd format..how can you tell what your watching is actually hd on hte hd channel?
 

Starburst

Distinguished Member
yeah i'm now thinking its a rip off..tbh i only got cos the black box looks better in my av set up!
i am also shocked that stuff on hd channels may not be hd format..how can you tell what your watching is actually hd on hte hd channel?





It will have HD in the EPG and Banner info plus the HD ident is used on screen.

That's assuming you knowledge of HD is at a level you don't fully understand that for many many years shows were made in SD and can never practically be shown in HD in the same manner thousands of hours of shows are full frame and will never be proper widescreen.

A decade after widescreen appeared in the UK there are still those who don't haver a clue (including some broadcasters) so I suppose it's reasonable to expect that even despite the cost many people simply don't understand HD and it's limitations but slap the cash down, don't cancel for a full refund in the first month and then have 11 months to complain:)
 
D

Darren73

Guest
I don't see the £10/month as a rip off - in my case moving from Sky+ I lose one £10/month charge, to be replaced by another, so it makes no difference. I don't quite see Neil's point about the box being a rip off if you are moving from Sky+. Regardless or what you've got, the box costs the same to make.

What *does* annoy me is that if I want HD in another room then I have to pay another £10/month. If Sky's argument is that they subsidise the box and then I'd gladly source the box myself/pay full retail for the box, but paying 2 HD subs is a bit much I reckon.
 

RSVdaz

Banned
if you have the premium channels sky + was free so when you upgrade to hd you do pay an extra £10/month.

sorry to go slightly off topic..when i had it installed..i have a 42"lcd the installer during the set up put the format on the sky box at 4:3..i asked if it should be 16:9 and he said no..all tv's made now are 4:3..is this correct?..i thought widescreen is 16:9..i have changed it to 16:9..and i cant really tell the difference..should i?
 

Starburst

Distinguished Member
What *does* annoy me is that if I want HD in another room then I have to pay another £10/month. If Sky's argument is that they subsidise the box and then I'd gladly source the box myself/pay full retail for the box, but paying 2 HD subs is a bit much I reckon.




Yeah the subsidy argument made some sense when you couldn't buy the box cheaper than SKY but now they are exploiting the situation for multiroom HD by claiming the sub covers the loss on the second box.
 

loz

Distinguished Member
What *does* annoy me is that if I want HD in another room then I have to pay another £10/month. If Sky's argument is that they subsidise the box and then I'd gladly source the box myself/pay full retail for the box, but paying 2 HD subs is a bit much I reckon.

Here, here.
That is a rip off, considering you have to pay £10 multiroom as well.
£20 premium to get HD in a second room :nono:
 

mitchec1

Distinguished Member
Here, here.
That is a rip off, considering you have to pay £10 multiroom as well.
£20 premium to get HD in a second room :nono:

Have to agree, my missus pays for the Sky bill (2 HD boxes) and did ask why she was being penalised the nice young lady from CS said it was because the box was being subsidised, to which my missus replied " Well if you released a working CAM you wouldn't have to subsidise your box and people could go out and buy a better one and not be ripped off with the extra subscription" met with a stunned silence.
 
N

NEIL J JONES

Guest
I don't quite see Neil's point about the box being a rip off if you are moving from Sky+. Regardless or what you've got, the box costs the same to make.

Yeah but to the person buying it its even more of a rip off, ok if you only had a digibox then you get Sky + functionality and HD so its not so bad but if your upgrading from Sky + then it seems to me a lot of dosh.

It has resulted in people using underhand methods to get it cheaper.
 
N

NEIL J JONES

Guest
Back in May 2006 I was shocked how cheap the STB was especially when H.264 chips were in short supply and FTA HD mpeg4 boxes (single tuner no hard drive) were only marginally cheaper and there were no HD DVR's offered at all.
A year later the £100 "subsidy" SKY claimed must have been absorbed by the market and certainly being able to buy SKY+ HD on the open market for less than SKY proves that but SKY have always sold hardware more expensive than retail.
Don't forget Thomson would have got a contract with price levels fixed at certain points, they may still be paid at X price even though component prices to them have fallen.

We may see some change when Amstrad introduce their model after all I guarantee they will be supplying units cheaper than Thomson and then in turn will pressure Thomson.

I understand what your saying and when it first come out 299 was not a bad prcie to pay for such new technology, but almost a year in I think Sky should at least get it down to say 229 or even 199, loads of others would then take it up.
 

loz

Distinguished Member
SKY but now they are exploiting the situation for multiroom HD by claiming the sub covers the loss on the second box.

So that implies that the multiroom HD sub will stop at some point, once the subsidy is covered?

Errr, not in Sky's case..... :thumbsdow
 

adrian3221

Active Member
Yeah but to the person buying it its even more of a rip off, ok if you only had a digibox then you get Sky + functionality and HD so its not so bad but if your upgrading from Sky + then it seems to me a lot of dosh.

It has resulted in people using underhand methods to get it cheaper.

It is not a rip-off because no-one is FORCED to upgrade to SKY HD!!! Its not a basic need or a right - its a luxury! Anyone who thinks that £299 is a rip-off then promptly hands over a wad of used fivers is a little bit strange.:nono:
 

loz

Distinguished Member
It is not a rip-off because no-one is FORCED to upgrade to SKY HD!!! Its not a basic need or a right - its a luxury!

The term rip-off is applied to many things that are not a "basic need or a right". The pricing of CD's or Levi Jeans for example have all been described as "rip-offs". Neither of those is a basic need or right either.

e.g. from http://www.answers.com/topic/rip-off
"A product or service that is overpriced or of poor quality."
 

adrian3221

Active Member
The term rip-off is applied to many things that are not a "basic need or a right". The pricing of CD's or Levi Jeans for example have all been described as "rip-offs". Neither of those is a basic need or right either.

e.g. from http://www.answers.com/topic/rip-off
"A product or service that is overpriced or of poor quality."

Its not the term Im disputing. I dont understand why someone would hand over their hard-earned for "a product or service that they believe to be overpriced?????"
 
N

NEIL J JONES

Guest
Anyone who thinks that £299 is a rip-off then promptly hands over a wad of used fivers is a little bit strange.:nono:

But people are not handing over their wads, many are holding back waiting for the price to come down, lots will not pay 299. I got mine for 169 all in and thats the only reason I bought it, would never have got it if it cost me 299.
 

alphaomega16

Distinguished Member
Sky+ = Extra £10 a month for the recording capability.

SkyHD = £10 a month for HD channels and free recording capability.

?????

I got no problem with the £10.
 

triplea4uk

Active Member
Sky+ = Extra £10 a month for the recording capability.

SkyHD = £10 a month for HD channels and free recording capability.

?????

I got no problem with the £10.

Sky+ recording is free if you have high enough package with HD no matter what package you have you still have to pay the extra this is what annoys people most.
 

colham

Active Member
Sky+ recording is free if you have high enough package with HD no matter what package you have you still have to pay the extra this is what annoys people most.

I agree with that. I've had the full package for ages now so got my Sky+ functionality free. Should be similar - or £5 if you already subscribe to everything. Especially as you don't get Movies or Sports in HD unless you already subscribe to them.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom