[clinteastman]

Originally Posted by Mr K

HD = Emperors new clothes. The most popular TV size is 32 inch, on which it makes diddly squat difference. Same thing happened with digital tv and digital radio - people with good analogue signals and good FM reception got no difference (or downgraded quality in the case of digital radio vs a FM signal)

HD is useless for recording too as it fills up Tivo - very quickly. Got a wish list set for the 'Carry On' films ( I know, but lets forget my taste for the moment...)- pees me off when it chooses an HD channel to record it on.

It's not the size of the screen but how far away you are. Try sticking the 32inch on your lap and say there is no difference!!

---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------

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.

Nice insight there SP, Thanks!