Apart from the obvious - marketing issues / making money etc..... Why couldn't / haven't Sky created packages for Movies HD or Sports HD instead of the flat rate for HD, then the packages underneath? You can currently have the standard family pack and then pay for the add ons of Movies SD or Sports SD if you want to watch those particular genres. With Sky HD they have reversed this. The situation now appears to be that you have to pay for the HD facility only first and then choose the genres of your choice. Why couldn't they offer packages of Movies SD or Movies HD, Sports SD or Sports HD? Its easy to do, since all they do is block the signal if you dont pay for the channel. Sky just dont appear to have thought of customers like me. I dont pay for the Sports channels because I only watch the footy and I watch that with my mates at the pub. Thus to pay for the package isn't particularly cost effective for me. I dont choose Movies as the 10 channels pretty much show the same films week in week out. Again my choice. However for me to have HD on Sky One still want me to pay £10. Why couldn't they work it out pro rata? No movies, no sport a couple of £ to have HD on Sky One, for Movies also add another few £ and so forth. If you have all the channels already then it seems quite reasonable to pay £10 more. However if you only have said family pack and were looking to having Sky Sports at last because of HD, then its going to cost you a lot more, as you will have to absorb the cost of adding sports and HD (for every genre). Yes you gain the other HD channels but if you dont watch the other HD channels normally when they are in SD you are not going to reap the benefits. I'm not saying you should pay for HD and expect to get all the HD channels for free. What I'm saying is if you want Sports HD, they could have priced it for Sports HD only. After all if you currently want is Sports SD, you buy only Sports SD, not Movies SD as well.