Posted on August 20th, 2008 by David Bayon
Is HD TV finally worth paying for?
I remember when we first started talking about HD. Back then it was this mythical beast that would tear apart video as we know it with its millions of pixels, and leave us all cursing standard definition for being as fuzzy and vague as Colin Jackson’s “expert” Olympic analysis.
Then it arrived and we loved it. The first time I ran a 1080p video on my 40in TV, my non-techie housemate grabbed the controller and kept replaying the same HD movie trailer for what seemed like an hour, so enamoured was he with the detail. Those of us with a PlayStation3 or Blu-ray player can enjoy the delights of HD by renting movies, but TV has been much slower out of the blocks.
Put simply, even a drum-beating HD lover like myself can admit the line-up of HD channels just hasn’t been worth paying for. Cable customers with Virgin’s V+ box can watch several free channels like BBC HD (and enjoy the excellent Olympic coverage, Jackson aside), but Sky HD is the big gun we all pinned our hopes on. And it’s expensive. Very expensive.
The cost of the Sky HD box has recently been slashed by half to £150, which is a good step. But there’s still the £10 per month premium on your subscription, which if you want any decent line-up of channels will also have to include a Sky Sports and Movies subscription too. All in, the full HD package will cost you £55 a month – a lot of money for what began as a pretty paltry smattering of channels.
But that list has grown, and now Sky is upping the ante again. Today it announced the addition of seven more channels to the roster, bringing the total to a much more flattering 26. Three Sky Sports channels were already covered, but it always seemed unfair that the premium you were already paying for both the movie channels and the HD didn’t translate into a great amount of what you might expect – actual HD movies.
This update rectifies that with many of the best movie channels, including Sky Movies Action/Thriller, Sci-Fi/Horror, and the awesome Modern Greats, all appearing alongside the existing Screen and Premiere HD channels.
Don’t get me wrong, the Olympic coverage on the Beeb has been great, and the fact that we’ve all got so into it must partly be down to the techological advances like live online streaming – as Tim pointed out earlier in the week. But, apart from the two weeks of every year when people pretend to like tennis, it’s about the only major sport Auntie has left.
Sky has all the best bits, and seeing as movies and sport are the main things most people want in HD, it seems to me that the quantity of HD TV on offer has finally reached the threshold at which I always said I’d invest. Credit crunch? What credit crunch?
Tags: BBC, HD TV, high definition, olympics, Sky, Virgin
Posted in: Random
Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
5 Responses to “ Is HD TV finally worth paying for? ”
Leave a Reply
Authors
- Barry Collins
- Chris Brennan
- Christine Horton
- Darien Graham-Smith
- Dave Stevenson
- Davey Winder
- David Bayon
- David Fearon
- Ewen Rankin
- Ian Devlin
- Jon Honeyball
- Jonathan Bray
- Kevin Partner
- Mike Jennings
- Nicole Kobie
- Sasha Muller
- Steve Cassidy
- Stewart Mitchell
- Stuart Turton
- Tim Danton
- Tom Arah
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Android App of the Week
- cloud computing
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- iPhone App of the Week
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Windows 7
- Windows 8
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement



August 21st, 2008 at 8:07 am
For me to get HD, I’d need to buy a new TV (£1000), a Sky HD Box (£150) and my Sky subscription will go up an additional £120 a year.
Looks like I’ll be watching terrestrial TV for the next few years.
I can always go into Curry’s and watch it there for 5 minutes every week or so anyway.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:49 am
Yep, I don’t see the point really. I still watch the same programmes whether HD or not. I’m not paying out for a new TV, a PS3 and a Sky HD box. Then having to pay an increased subscription and for what? a clearer picture that can only be noticed on a tv above 37 inches.
When my tv breaks i will probably get one but I hope my old one lasts another 5 years personally. Each to there own though
August 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Is Freesat not worth a mention, then?
August 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Freesat’s a great innovation, but at the moment there are only two HD channels on it. It’ll probably get more than just BBC and ITV HD soon, almost certainly before Freeview does. But right now it’s not exactly HD heaven.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Pay for TV (apart from the licence fee)??? Who in their right mind would do that?