Possible confirmation of Sky HD subscription

[hdrees]

i just got a letter from SKY with regards to multiroom and here is a quote "(SKY HD) you will require a Sky HD box and a Sky HD subscription."

So anyone hoping to get it for free can read into that statement as they please

 

[gerryman62]

thats bad news

 

[daKlone]

Bugger...possibly

 

[KIOSKMAN]

What if I only want to watch BBC HD & ITV HD, (not yet conformed or transmitting) The platform cannot refuse to supply without a subscription. You will only need a subscription if you want to watch those channels that are part of the SKY Package. the BBC & ITV are not. same as the existing SKY LD deal.

 

[Mattk84]

Am i missing something ? Of course you are going to need a Sky HD box with a Sky HD subby to received sky HD !

I very much doubt that they will do the 'move your existing box to 2nd room for free' offer straight away as these sorts of deals are not immediate and are only used when interest looks like its fading.

 

[Starburst]

What if I only want to watch BBC HD & ITV HD, (not yet conformed or transmitting) The platform cannot refuse to supply without a subscription. You will only need a subscription if you want to watch those channels that are part of the SKY Package. the BBC & ITV are not. same as the existing SKY LD deal.

Then buy a non SKY HD receiver

If you want to use SKY proprietery hardware and the functions that are included you may need to pay a subscription.
I suspect the SKY+ HD will be like the SKY+, you can use it to view FTA HD channels (if tuning parameters are correct or they have an EPG slot) but the recording and upscaling will be turned off if you do not pay.

It's no surprise that SKY do not go out their way to tell you how to watch stuff for free, if you contact SKY in regards to HD then you are wanting info on PAY channels, there is no FTA content atm

 

[Fusewire]

I can't see what the problem is

There is obviously going to be a HD subscription in some form or another, Sky can't invest the millions that they have in HD and then not charge for it - they would go bust.

We may get the sub thrown in latter if we subscribe to X amount of premium channels but when that will be and how many hoops sky will get us to jump through to get it is anyones guess.

Personally I hope they give it away with the sky world package then I will be OK. But I think they will be more crafty than that, what about this - "Buy a Prem+ season ticket before the end of the week and you'll get sky sports HD for free" - terms & conditions apply.

The permutations are endless but the example above shows how they will probobaly use HD to generate extra revenue and how crafty sky can be at times with their promos.

 

[mark800]

I don't understand why people think there isn't going to be an extra subscription. There have been posted links to a presentation from James Murdoch saying there will be a subscription. How much evidence do some people want?...

 

[The_Censor]

I think some of you are very much missing the point - There is a big problem with Sky charging an additional monthly tariff for HD channels - because if they do then they will be charging you twice for the same thing.

I assume that the channels will be linked to the packages, so you will need the Sports packege to get Sky Sports HD, movie package to get Sky Movies HD etc - Therefore for anyone who wants to get all the HD Channels, they will be forced to get the most expensive, all-in Sky package - In that case, what exactly would someone without either premium movies or sport be paying for if there is an HD monthly tariff of say a tenner - BBC HD and Discovery???????

To me, there is a big problem here for Sky - Are they going to charge their customers twice for the same thing, or they going to make the HD content completely seperate from their existing package based subscription.

I can see what is happening, Sky see HD as a way to force people into getting the all-in full Sky package so that they can then pay for the priviledge by way of additional HD subscription charge of availing of their HD movie/sports channels etc Anyone with half a brain is going to keep their money and not be shafted up the hakushpa by Sky.

 

[greyhorse]

Sky will milk this for all its worth.

Box prices will be linked to the package you take out.


It wont be cheap thats a fact, it will be more than the current sky packages thats a fact, they will not miss this one.

You paid big bucks for a HD tv, they know you want some HD to go on it.

 

[Roger G Cam]

There is a monthly subscription for Sky+.

We don't all pay it because the subscription is free if you pay £30pm.

It's still a subscription.

They have lots of options.

Roger

 

[MKRich]

Just coz there is a sub doesn't mean that everyone will pay for the sub. How many of us on here have been getting the sky + "sub" for free just because we have more than 2 premium channels. I have said for a while (well relatively, I am a noob!) that the people paying full whack currently (sky + AND multiroom) will have the cost of the HD sub waived, it makes sense to do that as it gives people on lesser packages an incentive to upgrade to the full package. Plus gives the full subscribers a warm fuzzy feeling!

 

[Colman]

Sorry but I can't see what the problem is. HD viewers would pay the additional sub (say £10 pm) for the HD bit. Those on basic packages then get the additional Artsworld HD, Discovery HD, Sky one HD and Nat Geo HD. Those who subscribe to the sport channels get the addition of Sky Sports HD. Those who subscribe to Movie channels get the addition of Sky Movies 9 HD and 10 HD.

It's possible that those who subscribe to the top tier (Movies and Sport) may get the HD sub waived, but I doubt it at this stage.

 

[Lin3ar]

Sorry but I can't see what the problem is. HD viewers would pay the additional sub (say £10 pm) for the HD bit. Those on basic packages then get the additional Artsworld HD, Discovery HD, Sky one HD and Nat Geo HD. Those who subscribe to the sport channels get the addition of Sky Sports HD. Those who subscribe to Movie channels get the addition of Sky Movies 9 HD and 10 HD.

It's possible that those who subscribe to the top tier (Movies and Sport) may get the HD sub waived, but I doubt it at this stage.

I think you have hit the nail on the head.This seems to be the easiest, fairest way of doing things.

 

[jay61076]

Cant we all just stop getting so worked up about something that hasn’t been announced ( BY SKY ) as yet.

All this is doing is souring the forum and getting a lot of peoples blood pressure up

Do you thinks if we call sky and say our doctors blame sky for the high blood pressure we might get a discount

 

[The_Censor]

Sorry but I can't see what the problem is. HD viewers would pay the additional sub (say £10 pm) for the HD bit. Those on basic packages then get the additional Artsworld HD, Discovery HD, Sky one HD and Nat Geo HD. Those who subscribe to the sport channels get the addition of Sky Sports HD. Those who subscribe to Movie channels get the addition of Sky Movies 9 HD and 10 HD.

It's possible that those who subscribe to the top tier (Movies and Sport) may get the HD sub waived, but I doubt it at this stage.

There's the problem, the HD subscription is in effect charging us twice for the same thing by stealth, due to the HD channels being inextribably linked with the related Premium subscription packages -

Rupert Murdoch to us "You want HD? You have to buy the new box at a premium, the HD channels will be linked to our existing packages, so you need to subscribe to them to get the related HD, and oh yeah, not only have you paid big bucks for your box and won't get ALL the HD channels without taking out the full, most expensive, Sky package (it's the only way), but also, we're charging you a monthly fee for the priviledge of paying for the box and taking out the full subscription to be able to get the HD channels - Is that reasonable? (PS Did I mention you're mainly going to be watching upscaled SD stuff?)"

No, truck away aff!

 

[MAW]

Is that reasonable?

Course it's reasonable. They provide a service, you pay for it. It's not life or death, it's not your heating bill. If you don't think it's reasonable, you can do without. It's a premium service, it seems clear to me from all we've heard that that is how it will work, so brace yourself if I were you.

 

[The_Censor]

Course it's reasonable. They provide a service, you pay for it. It's not life or death, it's not your heating bill. If you don't think it's reasonable, you can do without. It's a premium service, it seems clear to me from all we've heard that that is how it will work, so brace yourself if I were you.

Hmmm, fair enough, you are happy for capitalism to run completely unchecked? I personally want to see Sky regulated more tightly, to prevent a monopoly, which they are always dangerously close to obtaining - When you read the price that Telewest are offering their HD service at, it is perfect evidence that a healthy market is one where no one company monopolises the market - Telewest are offering their package so cheaply and competitively because they know they have to gain more market share by stealing Sky customers - If Sky had 1 or 2 companys going toe to toe with them in the HD arena, they would be begging the customer to choose them rather than the possibility of milking their existing and new customers for all they are worth and then some. If HD with multiroom means a £70 Sky monthly subscription on top of paying top buck for equipment, I will have reached the point where I am acutely aware that it is time to opt out.

 

[bobsplace]

Hmmm, fair enough, you are happy for capitalism to run completely unchecked? I personally want to see Sky regulated more tightly, to prevent a monopoly, which they are always dangerously close to obtaining - When you read the price that Telewest are offering their HD service at, it is perfect evidence that a healthy market is one where no one company monopolises the market - Telewest are offering their package so cheaply and competitively because they know they have to gain more market share by stealing Sky customers - If Sky had 1 or 2 companys going toe to toe with them in the HD arena, they would be begging the customer to choose them rather than the possibility of milking their existing and new customers for all they are worth and then some. If HD with multiroom means a £70 Sky monthly subscription on top of paying top buck for equipment, I will have reached the point where I am acutely aware that it is time to opt out.

Stop a monopoly?.....thats a joke.

Similar to the "power" companies?

Instead of one company ripping us off loads do it!!!

Why do people beleive its their right to receive quality broadcasting at a fixed price?Its not sky we need to have a go at its the BBC,their the only one we cant opt out of.

Its a quality service at a set cost, thats life,take it leave it, you choose........

 

[inkinoo]

Hmmm, fair enough, you are happy for capitalism to run completely unchecked?

Sky isn't a charity; they have to make money. I don't think you have any concept of exactly how much money HD is costing Sky. They will have to upgrade all of their internal system to cope with the biggest change in television since moving from black and white to colour.

And if you don't think capitalism I suggest you either a) do something to change the system of finance in this country or b) move to a non capitalist country. Coming on a forum concerned with products that simply wouldn't exist without a capitalist economy is ill advised at best.

 

[chambeaj]

I consider my SKY subscription money well spent . Plenty of channels and a great choice of documentries, movies, sci-fi etc etc. Can't wait to get hold of SKY HD. I imagine to most AV/Home cinema enthusiastes such as myself the extra £10 per month will be a small price to pay.

SKY may have the monopoly at present. But thats because the competition is total rubbish in comparison and offers poor value for money (i.e. the TV license - what a complete rip off that is).

Personally I think SKY reasonably priced.

 

[Lin3ar]

I consider my SKY subscription money well spent . Plenty of channels and a great choice of documentries, movies, sci-fi etc etc. Can't wait to get hold of SKY HD. I imagine to most AV/Home cinema enthusiastes such as myself the extra £10 per month will be a small price to pay.

SKY may have the monopoly at present. But thats because the competition is total rubbish in comparison and offers poor value for money (i.e. the TV license - what a complete rip off that is).

Personally I think SKY reasonably priced.

Well said, I agree.
At work, I am the only member of my 8 man team who has the full Sky package.The others think that it is a complete waste of money even though most of them are mad keen football and film fans.They will quite happily waste a small fortune on beer every week and then moan about how much Sky costs.
I, for one, do not understand this mentality.A tenner a week is a small price to pay for what you get in my opinion.

 

[steve36]

I think I pay roughly £1 an hour for the programming I watch from Sky non freeview channels most weeks due to the hours I spend at work.
If paramount+Sci fi were to move to 'top up TV' and a PVR existing that can handle Top up TV I would be off in seconds.

My main issue is that I have to subscribe to movie channels above the package I would choose in order get Sky+ without paying £10 for nothing, this I would not mind too much if they'd at least broadcast in DD5.1 which they appear to have recently cut back on. The HD movie channels had better increase the DD5.1 output or I'll be even more irritated.

On top of this I now must pay an extra £10(?) a month to get a better picture. Oddly enough I don't begrudge them this extra £10, it must have cost a lot to move to HD, but I do now begrudge the Sky+ £10.

P.S. I can't wait to pay up and spend even more money on my limited viewing time!

Steve

 

[Howard Pitfield]

Agree - my Blockbuster card is curling up through non-use. Sky Movies may be behind in release dates, but I'm not in a hurry to see the latest film when it comes out.

Now that we'll have cracking pictures with DD 5.1 as standard it seems reasonable in cost to me.

I have a monthly sub with Lovefilm at £9.95 - that'll go too....

H

 

[blakey1]

I think it depends on who you are and how much TV you watch.

I have the full Sky Package plus multiroom. Is it worth it? Not really in my opinion but I love Cricket and watch alot of football. Skys sports coverage is second to none.

Apart from Sport I dont really think theres alot on Skys thats worth watching. If I look at my Sky+ planner nearly all the series links are for programmes on the main 5 channels and the sports channels. Probably no more than 5% of my viewing is from channels other than the main five and the 4 sports channels.

I watch the odd movies but with online companies offering unlimited movies for £10-£15 a month which are newer than the box office movies this seems like a waste of money.

Most people I know who are into football are mainly into watching their own team and therefore will go to the pub or to a friends house to watch.

I think Sky is worth it for the TV junkie but if your not a Sports fan there are probably cheaper and better ways to watch TV.

Ive got nothing against SKy though as surely its up to a rival companies to sort themselves out and properly challenge Sky.

Until then I sure I will always be with Sky