Originally Posted by foxeng
I saw some numbers about 6 months ago and the number of households watching HD on HD displays is nowhere near the number of households with HD displays. The numbers are quite depressing. That is why you see all the providers pushing HD services so hard.
If they really wanted to make a push, they wouldn't charge extra for the privilege.
I know it sounds silly for someone to buy the TV, then not be willing to pay the $10 a month for access, but this isn't 2001 anymore, when a 42" TV cost $1200-$1800 (and that was seldom for a sexy flat panel). You can get the same thing now for around $600-$800, depending on brand, which almost doesn't matter anymore with how good many of the budget brands have become. A 27" SD tube TV would run you a good $400-$500 back then, so around $600 for a bit more real estate isn't going to break the bank.
However, $10 a month is $120 a year - probably forever, since that charge likely won't go away so much as be absorbed into the basic price. Now, I realize some providers don't have that extra charge for HD, but it's often there in some form, either through needed to order a larger minimum package or more advance (read: more expensive) equipment.
Not only that, with cable and satellite, now you're talking about a box verses just plugging into the wall jack with analog cable. Now, once more providers start going all digital, you might see more people stepping up since they need the box anyway, but for now, the system is simple. It just works.
In a time when many are considering cutting back on services, adding more is not likely an option.