Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant
Ok, here goes... 
1) A HD channel takes typically 4 to 6 times the bandwidth of a SD channel. So changing all channels to HD would require far more bandwidth, even if the SD versions were dropped. That either means losing a load of channels, or introducing new expensive technologies (e.g. switched video; motorised dishes and more satellites)
2) The fact that many TVs are SD-only isn't a problem if they have an HD STB that can downscale. However, LOTS of people still have SD-only STBs. Are you willing to pay for new STBs for them?
3) HD production and broacasting is more expensive, and requires new equipment. Are you willing to pay for all the minor broadcasters to upgrade?
4) Interest in HD simply isn't that great. Although 73% of the UK population have a HD-ready TV, only 49% actually have a HD source ( source).
And many of those who could watch HD, don't. As an example only 5.7% of ITV viewing last week was HD. |
Well, some interesting points there. I have to say I don't quite understand the compensation argument, no-one suggested that Kodak should compensate anyone who owned an old camera when they said they weren't going to make film any more. No-one suggested that the makers of HD DVD devices should pay compensation to owners when they lost out to Blu Ray in the format wars and loads of other examples of similar that have occurred over the years!
I still stick to my original assertion, that this is a case of when this will happen, not if. I realise it's not going to be imminent, but I'm just saying I'd like to see it happen in the next, say, 4 to 5 years rather than the 15 to 20 which unfortunately I believe is the more likely scenario.
Lastly, when I watched the Community Shield yesterday, I watched it on 113 rather than 103. I've always wanted to be in the top 5.7% of the population for something, looks like I've finally achieved my goal!
