Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 57

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1852233 25-Aug-2017 08:51

tdgeek:

kryptonjohn:

Not sure I understand the question... wouldn't streaming make things easier for them? At the moment the way most of them seem to distribute Sky over multiple SD analog modulators is a dog - you get just a selected handful of the channels and it looks like you are watching through the bottom of a milk bottle.

I meant that the motel/hotel would need a pretty solid and fast internet connection to support many rooms playing Sky over the internet every night. Those with slower VDSL or with ADSL would find it very tough to satisfy the bandwidth I would have thought.

Ah gotcha. Gut feel is that city hotels with fibre will have no problem but places out in the boondocks would be stuffed. Mind you, in a 100 room hotel, how many are watching their TVs at once? My uneducated guess is not many but when there's a rugby test or Americas Cup race on the whole thing would die horribly.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852236 25-Aug-2017 08:55

quickymart: http://nzh.tw/11910532

See under "Sky TV broadside".

I actually agree with Fellet's points. The discussion here has shown that they cannot do a lot. If they went internet only in 6 months, many many families would have an issue, as their internet isn't capable of HD streaming all night, and other internet activities such as NF or LB streaming by the other family members

How does a motel provide Sky internet to every room at night unless they have fibre, and they all dont

OD is a saving of $8 a month, so thats not the silver bullet either, although more once you dump the dish. Dish is $400, they make $13 a month per subscriber, so its an age before they get a return, plus the installers $99

So, they need to go OD AND to keep Satellite AND that paying for those two transmission services is cheaper than what it is now for one, cannot happen

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852285 25-Aug-2017 08:59

kryptonjohn:

tdgeek:

kryptonjohn:

Not sure I understand the question... wouldn't streaming make things easier for them? At the moment the way most of them seem to distribute Sky over multiple SD analog modulators is a dog - you get just a selected handful of the channels and it looks like you are watching through the bottom of a milk bottle.

I meant that the motel/hotel would need a pretty solid and fast internet connection to support many rooms playing Sky over the internet every night. Those with slower VDSL or with ADSL would find it very tough to satisfy the bandwidth I would have thought.

Ah gotcha. Gut feel is that city hotels with fibre will have no problem but places out in the boondocks would be stuffed. Mind you, in a 100 room hotel, how many are watching their TVs at once? My uneducated guess is not many but when there's a rugby test or Americas Cup race on the whole thing would die horribly.

Yeah, even on a slower VDSL, say 30/10

My conclusion is that OD is a great idea but its more a consumer model, and for the masses, its when everyone has 50/20 or better. Right now, everyone who uses NF, CAN use it. But when you line up 800,000 everyones there are bound to be a lot who will have a subpar viewing experience and/or affect others in the home

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852322 25-Aug-2017 09:29

Satelittle would have to remain for at least the next 10 years MINIMUM. That is because there are large portions of the country who will not see Fibre/UFB (Like Whangamata) till well after 2024. That is one example, hardly super remote. For super remote, even worse.

trig42

5811 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1852327 25-Aug-2017 09:34

Motels/Hotels would do similar to what they do now - IPTV to a central location, out to rooms via either RF or DVB modulator.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852330 25-Aug-2017 09:35

For those who are suggesting doing away with dishes, we then have an issue that many hundreds of installers all lose their jobs, hardly an ideal outcome. So indirectly lower sky prices > higher unemployment.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852333 25-Aug-2017 09:39

trig42:

Motels/Hotels would do similar to what they do now - IPTV to a central location, out to rooms via either RF or DVB modulator.

There are thousands of Hotels/Motels in NZ with no IP of a speed suitable to run IPTV.

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1852334 25-Aug-2017 09:40

networkn:

For those who are suggesting doing away with dishes, we then have an issue that many hundreds of installers all lose their jobs, hardly an ideal outcome. So indirectly lower sky prices > higher unemployment.

Anyone who has the skills to get up a ladder, install a dish, pull through and terminate cables, test signals etc is going to have zero trouble finding alternative work. You should try finding a tradesman or even handyman at the moment - extremely difficult.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852339 25-Aug-2017 09:49

kryptonjohn:

networkn:

For those who are suggesting doing away with dishes, we then have an issue that many hundreds of installers all lose their jobs, hardly an ideal outcome. So indirectly lower sky prices > higher unemployment.

Anyone who has the skills to get up a ladder, install a dish, pull through and terminate cables, test signals etc is going to have zero trouble finding alternative work. You should try finding a tradesman or even handyman at the moment - extremely difficult.

I tend to agree, they seem to be just installers of many services, Sky is one customer. Im not sure there are huge installs going on, mainly new areas, and the odd old area.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852343 25-Aug-2017 09:55

networkn:

Satelittle would have to remain for at least the next 10 years MINIMUM. That is because there are large portions of the country who will not see Fibre/UFB (Like Whangamata) till well after 2024. That is one example, hardly super remote. For super remote, even worse.

From the rough number I came up with to save costs by dumping Optus, its hardly worth it. There would be more related savings, but its not going to be a Skys new prices are $50 cheaper job. And as the satellite is written off they will probably save that anyway. To me, we just seem to small a country. Many here have travelled a lot, we have all been to many many cities that are far bigger than NZ's whole population. If Sky had their typical market share of about 50% and that was 1.5 million subscribers, not .8, that would allow more options and savings I feel. A better economy of scale

Apsattv

2390 posts

Uber Geek

#1852356 25-Aug-2017 10:16

tdgeek:

quickymart: http://nzh.tw/11910532

See under "Sky TV broadside".

I actually agree with Fellet's points. The discussion here has shown that they cannot do a lot. If they went internet only in 6 months, many many families would have an issue, as their internet isn't capable of HD streaming all night, and other internet activities such as NF or LB streaming by the other family members

How does a motel provide Sky internet to every room at night unless they have fibre, and they all dont

OD is a saving of $8 a month, so thats not the silver bullet either, although more once you dump the dish. Dish is $400, they make $13 a month per subscriber, so its an age before they get a return, plus the installers $99

So, they need to go OD AND to keep Satellite AND that paying for those two transmission services is cheaper than what it is now for one, cannot happen

Where are you pulling the amount of $400 for a dish its nonsense and with near %50 takeup the need to install dishes is pretty much gone as most places have them already.

As for Hotels and Motels they can easily have iptv distributed via their LAN to iptv stb

Satellite costs can be cut if they can hand back 1 or 2 t.p to Optus after the full DVB -s2 upgrade, new channels can be pushed out via net connected decoders , on demand movies and ethnic channels dont need to be taking up satellite space.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852374 25-Aug-2017 10:25

Apsattv:

tdgeek:

quickymart: http://nzh.tw/11910532

See under "Sky TV broadside".

I actually agree with Fellet's points. The discussion here has shown that they cannot do a lot. If they went internet only in 6 months, many many families would have an issue, as their internet isn't capable of HD streaming all night, and other internet activities such as NF or LB streaming by the other family members

How does a motel provide Sky internet to every room at night unless they have fibre, and they all dont

OD is a saving of $8 a month, so thats not the silver bullet either, although more once you dump the dish. Dish is $400, they make $13 a month per subscriber, so its an age before they get a return, plus the installers $99

So, they need to go OD AND to keep Satellite AND that paying for those two transmission services is cheaper than what it is now for one, cannot happen

Where are you pulling the amount of $400 for a dish its nonsense and with near %50 takeup the need to install dishes is pretty much gone as most places have them already.

As for Hotels and Motels they can easily have iptv distributed via their LAN to iptv stb

Satellite costs can be cut if they can hand back 1 or 2 t.p to Optus after the full DVB -s2 upgrade, new channels can be pushed out via net connected decoders , on demand movies and ethnic channels dont need to be taking up satellite space.

I've been told $400 by two installers. There are subdivisions galore everywhere, they have no dishes. How much is a dish? $100?

Motels. A number of rooms playing different channels at the same time , is that not different streams? One for each room?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852375 25-Aug-2017 10:26

tdgeek:

networkn:

Satelittle would have to remain for at least the next 10 years MINIMUM. That is because there are large portions of the country who will not see Fibre/UFB (Like Whangamata) till well after 2024. That is one example, hardly super remote. For super remote, even worse.

From the rough number I came up with to save costs by dumping Optus, its hardly worth it. There would be more related savings, but its not going to be a Skys new prices are $50 cheaper job. And as the satellite is written off they will probably save that anyway. To me, we just seem to small a country. Many here have travelled a lot, we have all been to many many cities that are far bigger than NZ's whole population. If Sky had their typical market share of about 50% and that was 1.5 million subscribers, not .8, that would allow more options and savings I feel. A better economy of scale

I think people need to get onboard with the harsh reality of living in a small widely distributed country and the challenges we face with that. Faster internet has made a lot of those issues seem less significant. I don't see Sky getting less expensive, and I actually see Sky getting significantly more expensive in the long term, unless they can do better with the content acquisition. I expect them to do better with the Optus system, as when it's up for negotiation they should do a bit better on the price this time around, but even if they halved it by some miracle, it makes a whole $4 a month difference.

For those of us who want sport, I expect that changes in the next few years likely see us paying significantly more. Either Sky will stop subsidising sport across the customer base and sports fans will have to pay more, in order for them to drop the price of "basic" Sky for the masses, or they leave it the way it is and the ever increasing cost of content will be spread across all those people.

JF's comments were nonsense, but it still doesn't address the fact that Sky's costs are high and when spread evenly across their customer base doesn't allow for significant price drops.

It's very simple, if what you want to watch is available on Netflix, or lightbox, or some other SVOD service, for cheaper, use your consumer choice and subscribe to that service.

There have been so many threads of this nature whining about the price of Sky, and has been proven in this thread, they aren't ripping people off, there are logistical and value propositions there are simply no work around for. For a lot of people, Sky provides a valued service and even if we would LIKE it to be cheaper, the reality is, it can't currently be provided (Significantly) cheaper.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1852383 25-Aug-2017 10:33

networkn:

tdgeek:

networkn:

Satelittle would have to remain for at least the next 10 years MINIMUM. That is because there are large portions of the country who will not see Fibre/UFB (Like Whangamata) till well after 2024. That is one example, hardly super remote. For super remote, even worse.

From the rough number I came up with to save costs by dumping Optus, its hardly worth it. There would be more related savings, but its not going to be a Skys new prices are $50 cheaper job. And as the satellite is written off they will probably save that anyway. To me, we just seem to small a country. Many here have travelled a lot, we have all been to many many cities that are far bigger than NZ's whole population. If Sky had their typical market share of about 50% and that was 1.5 million subscribers, not .8, that would allow more options and savings I feel. A better economy of scale

I think people need to get onboard with the harsh reality of living in a small widely distributed country and the challenges we face with that. Faster internet has made a lot of those issues seem less significant. I don't see Sky getting less expensive, and I actually see Sky getting significantly more expensive in the long term, unless they can do better with the content acquisition. I expect them to do better with the Optus system, as when it's up for negotiation they should do a bit better on the price this time around, but even if they halved it by some miracle, it makes a whole $4 a month difference.

For those of us who want sport, I expect that changes in the next few years likely see us paying significantly more. Either Sky will stop subsidising sport across the customer base and sports fans will have to pay more, in order for them to drop the price of "basic" Sky for the masses, or they leave it the way it is and the ever increasing cost of content will be spread across all those people.

JF's comments were nonsense, but it still doesn't address the fact that Sky's costs are high and when spread evenly across their customer base doesn't allow for significant price drops.

It's very simple, if what you want to watch is available on Netflix, or lightbox, or some other SVOD service, for cheaper, use your consumer choice and subscribe to that service.

There have been so many threads of this nature whining about the price of Sky, and has been proven in this thread, they aren't ripping people off, there are logistical and value propositions there are simply no work around for. For a lot of people, Sky provides a valued service and even if we would LIKE it to be cheaper, the reality is, it can't currently be provided (Significantly) cheaper.

The bolded especially, and the rest of your post sums this up perfectly. The desire to bag Sky often covers up the reality of what they provide

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1852389 25-Aug-2017 10:41

The thing with Sky is... while they have the rugby rights in NZ they are artificially protected. We can talk all we like about how much it really costs to provision a service... but the fact is you can get everything Sky offers for less elsewhere *apart* from certain sports. If there was a streaming rugby service here like the one I referred to earlier in Asia, Sky would be gone in a year.

Sky are not ripping us off. They're doing the very best they can in the situation they find themselves in. The problem is they are no longer an optimal way of delivering the content I want and others are now doing it better and cheaper.

Sky Movies are a good example. $20/month to get whatever they happen to be repeating at the time. If I watch one movie a week then for a little more I can watch four HD movies streaming. Whatever movie I want, whenever I want. If I watch no movies in the month I pay nothing. So I don't get Sky movies because there are better alternatives within NF, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon, Apple etc. If there was a better alternative to Sky Sport I would get it and then Sky would be gone.

It's not just me. Sky lost 30,000 subscribers in the last FY.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 57