2019 and no HD channels

mic2727

Is it really true that you still have to pay extra for HD channels on sky? My parents pay 35 euro a month for a picture consisting of about 16 pixels

Atlantic Dawn

As far as I know you get RTE 1/2 and also TV3 free in HD.

Mundo7976

Whatever is FTA in HD is free, pay for all others, Atlantic, Nat Geo, Witness etc

Gerry Wicklow

Mundo7976 wrote: »

Whatever is FTA in HD is free, pay for all others, Atlantic, Nat Geo, Witness etc

AFAIK some FTA HD channels are not on the RoI EPG and must be added manually.

ShaneOC

RTE 1 and RTE 2 are on HD for all customers with a HD box.

Virgin Media is only available in HD if you pay for the HD pack.

BBC channels are in HD but all over the EPG.

No Channel 4 HD on the Sky EPG in Ireland.

ShaneOC

Long time ago, Sky used to charge extra for the recording functionality on Sky+ boxes. This charge was removed after a while, or at least included in the regular subscription charge.

Unfortunately the HD charge looks like staying for the time being.

Trevord

Amazing marketing feat to charge people for channels that are available FTA and then to double on it by charging extra for HD.

Former Former

mic2727 wrote: »

Is it really true that you still have to pay extra for HD channels on sky? My parents pay 35 euro a month for a picture consisting of about 16 pixels

It's a question of perception.

There are still hundreds of thousands of SD boxes out there. If you bring in a single price for all SD and HD customers, then you are charging the SD people extra for something they do not want and cannot avail of.

Trevord

Former Former wrote: »

It's a question of perception.

There are still hundreds of thousands of SD boxes out there. If you bring in a single price for all SD and HD customers, then you are charging the SD people extra for something they do not want and cannot avail of.

That assumes the "single price" is the higher price. Charging extra for HD is just another way to rinse the customer.

This is a company that makes >£1 billion in profits annually.

Johnboy1951

Former Former wrote: »

It's a question of perception.

There are still hundreds of thousands of SD boxes out there. If you bring in a single price for all SD and HD customers, then you are charging the SD people extra for something they do not want and cannot avail of.

...... so you agree they should be charging for HD!

and the alternative is to charge everyone extra for HD as you see it.

cjragoo

HD is still treated like a premium service when on everything else (Netflix, YouTube, gaming) its pretty much the bare minimum now. On virgin you have to go up about 40 channels to find e4 HD or channel 4 HD.

Tigerandahalf

If TG4 have a HD channel on Sky it is a pity it is not fta. I guess they then would have to pay uk rights for any sports they show.

It is crazy that tg4 have a hd channel on sky and not on saorview. What Sky must be paying them is pennies especially when tg4 is in hd without the customer paying the hd charge.

Homer

It beggars belief that people still in 2019 are paying Sky the extortionate charges when they could get all the same content for a fraction of the price elsewhere. I suppose if people keep paying it they will keep charging it.

Former Former

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

...... so you agree they should be charging for HD!

and the alternative is to charge everyone extra for HD as you see it.

It's pretty basic business. If Sky make 5 billion from basic subs and 500 million from the HD premium, that's 5.5 billion. If they suddenly give everyone the HD pack at the lower cost, they've slashed their own income by 500 million, no reduction in cost and they've voluntarily given up a big bargaining chip in attracting or retaining customers. The Sky exec who does that will be sacked pretty quickly.

Maybe when 4k rolls out more channels, HD will become the baseline but not for a while.

(Those figures are totally made up for illustrative purposes, obviously).

Homer wrote: »

It beggars belief that people still in 2019 are paying Sky the extortionate charges when they could get all the same content for a fraction of the price elsewhere. I suppose if people keep paying it they will keep charging it.

You can't though.

BBC and Channel 4, grand. If you want to watch Game of Thrones, test cricket and the Disney Channel, then Sky is the only choice.

Homer

Former Former wrote: »

You can't though.

BBC and Channel 4, grand. If you want to watch Game of Thrones, test cricket and the Disney Channel, then Sky is the only choice.

You’re can though. Can’t discuss them here but there are plenty of alternatives to Sky at a fraction of the cost.

lgs 4

If sky stopped HD subsidies tomorrow. You would see host HD channels joining Freesat.That is where your subscription goes to keep HD channels from free to air on other platforms

Former Former

Homer wrote: »

You’re can though. Can’t discuss them here but there are plenty of alternatives to Sky at a fraction of the cost.

When the alternative is stealing it, any price that Sky set will be expensive by comparison.

Homer

Meh.. if they made their prices a bit fairer then maybe people wouldn’t resort to stealing it.

Former Former

Homer wrote: »

Meh.. if they made their prices a bit fairer then maybe people wouldn’t resort to stealing it.

Again, perspective... I'm sure Sky would say that if you and so many others weren't stealing it, they could reduce their prices.

Gerry Wicklow

Homer wrote: »

It beggars belief that people still in 2019 are paying Sky the extortionate charges when they could get all the same content for a fraction of the price elsewhere. I suppose if people keep paying it they will keep charging it.

inertia or ignorance. Many people still think satellite = Sky

Trevord

Former Former wrote: »

It's pretty basic business. If Sky make 5 billion from basic subs and 500 million from the HD premium, that's 5.5 billion. If they suddenly give everyone the HD pack at the lower cost, they've slashed their own income by 500 million, no reduction in cost and they've voluntarily given up a big bargaining chip in attracting or retaining customers. The Sky exec who does that will be sacked pretty quickly.

Yes - and the fact that they can choose to charge extra is an abuse of market power. Sky effectively had a monopoly for much of the last 20 years due to minimal regulation.

Freesat and FTA could be competition, but Sky buy the sports rights to nullify them. They made sure that they had RTE on their platform in Ireland also.

I've not issue with someone who is hooked on sport being a Sky subscriber, but many people have the Sky basic package which costs Sky peanuts to provide.

In Ireland getting Irish terrestrial and UK sat channels on a single platform is too complicated for many (and don't get me started on those that think it's illegal!)

Sky know that and charge a handy premium here versus UK.

Johnboy1951

Trevord wrote: »

Yes - and the fact that they can choose to charge extra is an abuse of market power. Sky effectively had a monopoly for much of the last 20 years due to minimal regulation.

Freesat and FTA could be competition, but Sky buy the sports rights to nullify them. They made sure that they had RTE on their platform in Ireland also.

I've not issue with someone who is hooked on sport being a Sky subscriber, but many people have the Sky basic package which costs Sky peanuts to provide.

In Ireland getting Irish terrestrial and UK sat channels on a single platform is too complicated for many (and don't get me started on those that think it's illegal!)

Sky know that and charge a handy premium here versus UK.

Yes, this has been the problem for many years ...... but not only too complicated for some, but also for those who are just too busy to put the effort and time into learning how and doing it themselves, it is not a viable option, unless they are lucky enough to read the right information in places such as this.

Things really should have changed when TV went digital throughout Europe. STBs suited for IE and even UK strangely did not appear, yet there were a huge number of boxes produced which could be used for illegal activities.

I never did understand it TBH.
Often the answer seems to be 'not commercially viable' but I was never convinced.

Former Former

Trevord wrote: »

Sky know that and charge a handy premium here versus UK.

This isn't correct. Prices here are about the same as in the UK.

Homer

Former Former wrote: »

This isn't correct. Prices here are about the same as in the UK.

You seem to have a bit of a horn for defending skys prices hmmmm :rolleyes:

Trevord

Former Former wrote: »

This isn't correct. Prices here are about the same as in the UK.

Now TV UK Price £7.99 = €9.20

Now TV IE Price €15

Former Former

Trevord wrote: »

Now TV UK Price £7.99 = €9.20

Now TV IE Price €15

Ah here. Are you going to pretend you were talking about Now TV now? It's an anonymous internet forum, it's ok to admit you were wrong.

Go on, you might even like it

Homer

Former Former wrote: »

Ah here. Are you going to pretend you were talking about Now TV now? It's an anonymous internet forum, it's ok to admit you were wrong.

Go on, you might even like it

You are coming across on an anonymous Internet forum as a bit of a d!ck, but you seem to like it. It’s quite ok that people have copped on to the fact that there are cheaper (legal and illegal) alternatives to sky and that’s what is great about living in a democracy.. we have choice to choose how we access tv/sports/movies etc..

_Kaiser_

Former Former wrote: »

Again, perspective... I'm sure Sky would say that if you and so many others weren't stealing it, they could reduce their prices.

This isn't correct. Sky have had a very effective stranglehold on the market for most of the last 25 years and in that time the prices have only gone one way - up! The ridiculous wages and fees of the top Premiership clubs have to be paid :rolleyes:

It's only in recent years that streaming services like Netflix and others are a viable alternative as the broadband requirement for those wasn't available to people before then, or the tech wasn't where it needed to be.

Couple that with added costs in the name of "competition". If you were a sports/football fan back in the day you paid for Sky Sports and you got everything available in this market. Then came the PPV experiment Premiership Plus which was an added charge, then other players like BT and Setanta entered the market further diluting the individual offerings and increasing the cost for the subscriber.

No one here is under any illusion about the illegality of "other" streaming methods, but Sky and the others have already passed the point that people are willing to pay and the alternatives are much more readily available and user friendly too. That's what's driving it - as Netflix, Spotify and even Office365 have proven, people will pay for what they consider to be a fair and good value price. Sky need to find that again.

lgs 4

For years having Sky tv was the in thing. ( keeping up with Jones ) Till along came Freesat HD and DTV Freeview digital television. People start to think about what they were paying sky. In other words, people got wise, like me 8 years ago and in more recent times the dodgy boxes.

So I say sit down and look at what, sky, virgin and eir costing you a year. That money would be better in my pocket.

Gonzo

as an alternative to Sky, Eir's TV service and the box itself is awful. I know several people who went with Eir TV and ditched Sky, as soon as Eir FTTH became available to them. Within a week (before the cooling off period ended) they all sent their Eir box for TV back and reconnected the Sky dish.

The Eir box and user interface is just awful in so many ways and the picture quality is even worse than Sky SD channels. Eir is also missing all the Sky channels with the exception of the premium movie and sports channels.

Former Former

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

This isn't correct.

I'm not saying it is correct. I'm saying it's how Sky would look at it.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Sky have had a very effective stranglehold on the market for most of the last 25 years and in that time the prices have only gone one way - up! The ridiculous wages and fees of the top Premiership clubs have to be paid :rolleyes:

It's only in recent years that streaming services like Netflix and others are a viable alternative as the broadband requirement for those wasn't available to people before then, or the tech wasn't where it needed to be.

Couple that with added costs in the name of "competition". If you were a sports/football fan back in the day you paid for Sky Sports and you got everything available in this market. Then came the PPV experiment Premiership Plus which was an added charge, then other players like BT and Setanta entered the market further diluting the individual offerings and increasing the cost for the subscriber.

No one here is under any illusion about the illegality of "other" streaming methods, but Sky and the others have already passed the point that people are willing to pay and the alternatives are much more readily available and user friendly too. That's what's driving it - as Netflix, Spotify and even Office365 have proven, people will pay for what they consider to be a fair and good value price. Sky need to find that again.

All valid points and I agree with most of it. Not really relevant to the question here though. The thread was about whether it's right to charge a premium for HD channels. The Sky-bashing has been done to death and then the corpse has been flogged a bit more.

You mention Netflix though which is relevant. The OP was giving out about Sky not giving HD as their baseline product - and neither do Netflix.

It's 7.99 pm to watch in SD, 10.99 (37.5% extra) for HD and more again if you want 4K. Sure, the numbers are lower, but isn't the basic principle the same? 37.5% is a hefty premium for something everyone here thinks should be offered as standard.

I don't use Spotify, I use Deezer, and their base price is a tenner per month, same as Spotify. Except if you want to listen to Deezer in high-quality FLAC, it's 20 per month. Same principle, even higher premium for the good stuff.

Office 365 is great too, and of course there's a bewildering array of options, prices and levels of product.

So I dunno, subscribe to Sky, don't subscribe, (I don't), I just don't understand why people think Sky are such absolute bastards for providing a service and charging money for it.

muffler

Former Former wrote: »

I just don't understand why people think Sky are such absolute bastards for providing a service and charging money for it.

I dont. Sky provides a service and makes a healthy profit in doing so. HD is an optional add on to any Sky package and no one is forced to take it. Why would Sky provide a product for free whenever its making them a very handsome profit?

So long as people continue to pay for HD Sky will continue to charge for it.

ForestFire

What in the name of Holy crap is Tv3, or whatever they are called now, playing at.......

Seriously..... I think it's some sort of field game with a ball??

Watching the Barcelona game, even if its likely beyond utd now and the other is in the balance.

No way could you watch that fuzzy thing when you have HD on the next channel.

Mundo7976

Imagine that. A privately owned company making a profit, cant get my head around it...

ShaneOC

muffler wrote: »

I dont. Sky provides a service and makes a healthy profit in doing so. HD is an optional add on to any Sky package and no one is forced to take it. Why would Sky provide a product for free whenever its making them a very handsome profit?

So long as people continue to pay for HD Sky will continue to charge for it.

Sky+ functionality (pause/record/rewind) was an additional offering when it launched. £10/€15 if memory serves. After a few years it was announced that it was being provided as part of the subscription.

There are no SD channels in France anymore.

NoBread

Former Former wrote: »

It's a question of perception.

There are still hundreds of thousands of SD boxes out there. If you bring in a single price for all SD and HD customers, then you are charging the SD people extra for something they do not want and cannot avail of.

There aren't though, Sky killed them off last April, they offered the free upgrade and had the note on their website and mailed to customers that they will lose service if they don't take the free upgrade.

Former Former wrote: »

You can't though.

BBC and Channel 4, grand. If you want to watch Game of Thrones, test cricket and the Disney Channel, then Sky is the only choice.

Disney Channel is not part of the basic sub, so it's extra, and I'm not sure what channel test cricket is on, but the basic offer that people pay €35-odd a month includes hardly any channels/content that isn't already free, and you can legally get Game of Thrones via other means - you can choose to buy the boxsets via some of the digital content providers like Microsoft etc, or you can still pay Sky via the NowTV sub, which is much cheaper than the basic sub.

Former Former wrote: »

Again, perspective... I'm sure Sky would say that if you and so many others weren't stealing it, they could reduce their prices.

Their prices aren't down to stealing service. I know many, many people who "acquired" movies and series via alternative methods, but when Netflix came along they were happy to pay around a tener a month.
If the price is reasonable, people won't bother stealing. Sky could easily afford to charge a tener a month and still be the largest player in town.

Gonzo wrote: »

as an alternative to Sky, Eir's TV service and the box itself is awful. I know several people who went with Eir TV and ditched Sky, as soon as Eir FTTH became available to them. Within a week (before the cooling off period ended) they all sent their Eir box for TV back and reconnected the Sky dish.

The Eir box and user interface is just awful in so many ways and the picture quality is even worse than Sky SD channels. Eir is also missing all the Sky channels with the exception of the premium movie and sports channels.

In fairness though, part of the problem is that people are wedded to the Sky interface. You could get Apple to design a superior one, and unless you told people it was from Apple, they would reject it. The early effort interface from Sky-Q was pure muck.

Former Former wrote: »

I'm not saying it is correct. I'm saying it's how Sky would look at it.
All valid points and I agree with most of it. Not really relevant to the question here though. The thread was about whether it's right to charge a premium for HD channels. The Sky-bashing has been done to death and then the corpse has been flogged a bit more.

You mention Netflix though which is relevant. The OP was giving out about Sky not giving HD as their baseline product - and neither do Netflix.

It's 7.99 pm to watch in SD, 10.99 (37.5% extra) for HD and more again if you want 4K. Sure, the numbers are lower, but isn't the basic principle the same? 37.5% is a hefty premium for something everyone here thinks should be offered as standard.

I don't use Spotify, I use Deezer, and their base price is a tenner per month, same as Spotify. Except if you want to listen to Deezer in high-quality FLAC, it's 20 per month. Same principle, even higher premium for the good stuff.

Office 365 is great too, and of course there's a bewildering array of options, prices and levels of product.

So I dunno, subscribe to Sky, don't subscribe, (I don't), I just don't understand why people think Sky are such absolute bastards for providing a service and charging money for it.

That's all a fair point, pay more for better quality. It's a reasonable approach. But you get extra simultaneous streaming with Netflix along with the HD for example, and it's a much lower cost.
For €35 per month, the least you should expect is HD, especially on the channels that offer it for free anyway.

lertsnim

When people will pay extra for HD then they have no grounds to complain about it. Why would Sky ever remove the charge? It would be throwing money away.

OldRio

God bless FreeSat. HD for free.

Johnboy1951

OldRio wrote: »

God bless FreeSat. HD for free.

FTA even better