Sky HD extra Sub not set in stone

"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a
lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an
additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+
and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g.
Sports World or Movies World.

She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we
all are!


What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra free
will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be an extra
sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to sky
just to get HD services from the BBC.

"No-One" wrote in message
...

"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a
lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an
additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+
and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g.
Sports World or Movies World.

She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we
all are!


What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra free
will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be an extra
sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to
sky just to get HD services from the BBC.

Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have
plenty of time to decide.

"Ed" wrote in message
roups.com...
Something like Demand over price resistance divided by churn multiplied by
cost of upgrade less cost of rival platform impact over time.

Plus the fact that Joe Chav seems completely happy to pay £1500 for a
huge plasma or LCD screen which is HD ready, so presumably he's also
got a couple of hundred quid that he's already put aside (mentally, not
physically - credit card debt will finance it as usual) for his HD box.

From the reports I've read, a large proportion of HD buyers expect the tv
picture to be HD as soon as they get it home.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"steeler" wrote in message
...

"No-One" wrote in message
...

"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a
lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an
additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+
and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g.
Sports World or Movies World.

She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we
all are!


What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra
free will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be an
extra sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay
money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC.

Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have
plenty of time to decide.


I'm confused about this - what's with the locked channels denoted "HD" then?

In uk.media.tv.sky steeler wrote:

: Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will have
: plenty of time to decide.

NO THEY ARE NOT!!! HD services are on test now/very soon and will be launched
to the general public by (probably) May/June so detailed debate within Sky
as to policy/pricing/target audience WILL be taking place NOW!

"Schrodinger" wrote in message
. ..

"steeler" wrote in message
...

"No-One" wrote in message
...

"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a
lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an
additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+
and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g.
Sports World or Movies World.

She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we
all are!


What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra
free will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be
an extra sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay
money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC.

Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will
have plenty of time to decide.


I'm confused about this - what's with the locked channels denoted "HD"
then?

A good way of guaging the market? If you go to the trouble of phoning them,
you must want it, from that they can estimate the proportion of subs likely
to take it up.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"Ed" wrote in message
roups.com...
Something like Demand over price resistance divided by churn multiplied
by cost of upgrade less cost of rival platform impact over time.

Plus the fact that Joe Chav seems completely happy to pay £1500 for a
huge plasma or LCD screen which is HD ready, so presumably he's also
got a couple of hundred quid that he's already put aside (mentally, not
physically - credit card debt will finance it as usual) for his HD box.

From the reports I've read, a large proportion of HD buyers expect the tv
picture to be HD as soon as they get it home.


They all buy the sets from Currys so the salesmen do not discourage this
view.

"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message
...
In uk.media.tv.sky steeler wrote:

: Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will
have
: plenty of time to decide.

NO THEY ARE NOT!!! HD services are on test now/very soon and will be
launched
to the general public by (probably) May/June so detailed debate within Sky
as to policy/pricing/target audience WILL be taking place NOW!

Stop shouting. If you had not snipped the OP you would see that I was
responding to

"I wouldn't want to be forced to pay money to sky
just to get HD services from the BBC."

in that any BBC service will not be available for country-wide roll-out on a
sky platform for, IMO, at least a year.

"Schrodinger" wrote in message
. ..

"steeler" wrote in message
...

"No-One" wrote in message
...

"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just had an interesting chat with a lady at Sky, who said there was a
lot of internal debate (a mass debate) about whether there would be an
additional charge for the HD channels, or if it would work like Sky+
and you get them 'free' if you get one or more of the top 'mixes', e.g.
Sports World or Movies World.

She was as desperate to get the actual pricing and availability as we
all are!


What I'm interested to know is will it be like sky+ in that the extra
free will be needed to enable all HD functionality? Or will it only be
an extra sub for sky's HD packages? I wouldn't want to be forced to pay
money to sky just to get HD services from the BBC.

Well as HD services are over a year off on the sky platform they will
have plenty of time to decide.


I'm confused about this - what's with the locked channels denoted "HD"
then?

Sorry for the confusion. Sky HD channels are launching soon - when I said
"at least a year" I was referring to the BBC HD output No-One mentioned.

Tumbleweed wrote:
"Ed" wrote in message
roups.com...
Something like Demand over price resistance divided by churn multipliedby
cost of upgrade less cost of rival platform impact over time.

Plus the fact that Joe Chav seems completely happy to pay £1500 for a
huge plasma or LCD screen which is HD ready, so presumably he's also
got a couple of hundred quid that he's already put aside (mentally, not
physically - credit card debt will finance it as usual) for his HD box.

From the reports I've read, a large proportion of HD buyers expect the tv
picture to be HD as soon as they get it home.

There was a report in a recent edition of 'What Video' about a survey
that showed that of those Americans who _thought_ there were receiving
HD broadcasts, half actually weren't. A common misassumption was that
an HD set was all they needed.