sky rant

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › sky rant

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#1106002 10-Aug-2014 19:19

You can also get it using/renting a Slingbox ?

SteveON

1916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 105

#1106147 11-Aug-2014 06:30

Just saw an ad for Amazon fire. Anyone used one?

jarledb

Webhead
3320 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1984

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1106267 11-Aug-2014 11:09

SteveON: Just saw an ad for Amazon fire. Anyone used one?

Got one, its worth the $99 USD. There is a thread about Amazon Fire TV here: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=151&topicid=143092

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

peterds

106 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1109931 17-Aug-2014 14:18

Sky NZ having been telling porkies for years about their lack of capacity to introduce more HD channels which was completely proven by all the extra HD channels for sports events in the last year or so.
Similarly Freeview NZ have had a pile of excuses as to why they could not host more SD channels and why they cant provide HD on Satellite.
The truth is both Sky and Freeview providors want to keep their operating costs to a minimum .
They seem oblivious to the fact that nowadays the Kiwi consumer is far more savvy and well aware that, compared to Australia and the UK, we are very poorly served here in NZ. In my opinion,as long as Sky maintains its Pay TV monopoly and Freeview is restricted by its inadequate funding from the ( Nationel-led ) government nothing is likely to change!
BUT WAIT..... Internet TV providors are coming along. Sparks " Lightbox " starts August 28 AND we have an election coming up on September 20 !!!
There may be hope on the horizon ater all.

Peter D Smale

vexxxboy

4342 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2081

#1109933 17-Aug-2014 14:25

peterds: Sky NZ having been telling porkies for years about their lack of capacity to introduce more HD channels which was completely proven by all the extra HD channels for sports events in the last year or so.
Similarly Freeview NZ have had a pile of excuses as to why they could not host more SD channels and why they cant provide HD on Satellite.
The truth is both Sky and Freeview providors want to keep their operating costs to a minimum .
They seem oblivious to the fact that nowadays the Kiwi consumer is far more savvy and well aware that, compared to Australia and the UK, we are very poorly served here in NZ. In my opinion,as long as Sky maintains its Pay TV monopoly and Freeview is restricted by its inadequate funding from the ( Nationel-led ) government nothing is likely to change!
BUT WAIT..... Internet TV providors are coming along. Sparks " Lightbox " starts August 28 AND we have an election coming up on September 20 !!!
There may be hope on the horizon ater all.

what do Lightbox and an a election have to do with the fact that we only have a population base of 4 million people. we will never have what Australia or UK have .

Common sense is not as common as you think.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#1109939 17-Aug-2014 14:33

vexxxboy:
peterds: Sky NZ having been telling porkies for years about their lack of capacity to introduce more HD channels which was completely proven by all the extra HD channels for sports events in the last year or so.
Similarly Freeview NZ have had a pile of excuses as to why they could not host more SD channels and why they cant provide HD on Satellite.
The truth is both Sky and Freeview providors want to keep their operating costs to a minimum .
They seem oblivious to the fact that nowadays the Kiwi consumer is far more savvy and well aware that, compared to Australia and the UK, we are very poorly served here in NZ. In my opinion,as long as Sky maintains its Pay TV monopoly and Freeview is restricted by its inadequate funding from the ( Nationel-led ) government nothing is likely to change!
BUT WAIT..... Internet TV providors are coming along. Sparks " Lightbox " starts August 28 AND we have an election coming up on September 20 !!!
There may be hope on the horizon ater all.

what do Lightbox and an a election have to do with the fact that we only have a population base of 4 million people. we will never have what Australia or UK have .

Geez do I get so sick of this " Oh we're only a small population" argument all the time to excuse providers in NZ for not providing things..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Benoire

2880 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 689

#1109946 17-Aug-2014 14:45

old3eyes:

Geez do I get so sick of this " Oh we're only a small population" argument all the time to excuse providers in NZ for not providing things..

I can't imagine a contents rights holder going, I know I'll sell content to NZ for less than market value because they can't afford it. They will try to maximise their return where possible, as a consequence Sky and other providers have to pay a value that is covered by their users. If NZ had more people then the price *may* be less than what we currently pay. I paid around £50 a month when I lived in the UK for all of Sky UKs channels, now I can say with confidence that if the UK did not have that population, then Sky's user base could be less and therefore Sky would charge more for the sub.

A bigger population gives greater economies of scale that work in the consumers favour.

peterds

106 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1109947 17-Aug-2014 14:47

This is completely wrong! There are several small European countries with a population similar to ours and far better TV services. Surely we need a government with spending priorities to improve the lives of most Kiwis.
For example, the taxpayers money wasted on the Americas Cup would go a long way to expand Freeview satellite..... there are endless examples of government spending money on things they THINK we want not what we need.

Peter D Smale

peterds

106 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1109948 17-Aug-2014 14:47

Peter D Smale

sen8or

1900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1408

#1110989 19-Aug-2014 07:34

Health, education, defense and social welfare be damned. We "need" govt funded super TV..............

peterds

106 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1111059 19-Aug-2014 08:59

For starters we need our government to fund one non-commercial channel on Freeview.
To do this in a modest way would cost $80-$90m per year and which I believe is less what they are currently spending on funding Maori TV and Te Reo.
Next they can sell off all of TVNZ in whole by a public share float. With the proceeds of the TVNZ sell-off they can increase funding for Radio NZ which has been frozen for several years. Radio NZ can then provide the news service for the non-commercial TV channel which would greatly reduce its running costs.
Finally ,as the economy improves the government can move to fund Freeview Satellite HD and ,when international standards have been set ,trial UHDTV but only fully fund it when potential consumer demand can be assessed.
When one considers the governments wasteful spending record ( eg The Americas Cup x2) there is plenty of money to fund much better TV services without reducing spending on health and education etc.

Peter D Smale

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

wasabi2k

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#1111069 19-Aug-2014 09:13

so how does the cost/benefit analysis of this look?

Why are the positives of government funded HD TV?

Benoire

2880 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 689

#1111074 19-Aug-2014 09:24

In a limited market (population) with a ppv provider and numerous free to air channels, how would a government sponsored channel afford the content? NZ stuff would be ok to come across I suppose but I'd expect a privatised TVNZ and TV3 to outbid the new channel and neither could probably compete with Sky for the top quality shows. When it comes to technology, sure the government could force the development of HD freeview via Satellite, but again as Wasabi asked, what would the benefit be to the rate payer?

In other words a limited market can only sustain so much choice before it becomes to costly, unless you want the equivalent to the BBC with a TV License.

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#1111077 19-Aug-2014 09:27

Fundamentally I believe my (our?) issue lies back at the regional broadcast rights based distribution model decision. SKY has purchased the rights to distribute in this area, so at that point they haven't done anything wrong, and are quite within their rights to actively block anyone else from selling the same content. If the content providers just offered it direct then I'd go there for the content. If they changed the model to be SKY has the rights to broadcast it over the air, but someone else could by the rights to distribute it via the web then that would work for me too. I've kind of backed off slamming Sky lately as until the content providers take more control over a new way they could distribute their content, and stick with the existing old fashioned regional based geo locked contracts, then Sky aren't doing anything wrong by purchasing the offerings.

I don't understand why the commerce commission isn't more involved with SKY TV though, given they genuinely have no competition in the Pay TV area. I guess it's just not seen as a public issue of much concern. Phone companies is, but TV is not I assume? Sky has the monopoly on pay TV content ~ I don't have an alternative in this country that I can chose. The rights bit above though does come into it. We could be worse off if there was competition and we had to purchase two subscriptions to see the content that is presently on just one.

HD is a rip. You have to pay more for it, but they only have a few devices that can show it, so you have to buy a DVR, even if you just want HD content. At a flat base rate for crap, and then sports on top and then a DVR and then the HD ticket, it's quite expensive for HD sports in NZ.

6 years ago (?) when land based freeview UHF came out they showed the Olympics in HD with surround sound on TV1. That was free to air and since then we've never seen any such sporting event in HD or surround sound for free ever again. This is rather sad for our country really. With the recent Commonwealth games we watched all our content on the BBC website. They had streams coming in from multiple events and they took some and merged into programming content for two broadcast channels. If you went to the sports web page though you could watch the live stream of any of the sports you wanted, so you weren't restricted to what was on a broadcast channel. It was honestly the best implementation of this that I have ever seen, and it's unfortunate that nothing like this was available in New Zealand.

Benoire

2880 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 689

#1111081 19-Aug-2014 09:34

I agree Jaxson, the outdated distribution model (not method though, I quite like the whole EPG... I dislike general programmes distributed only as online content as I forget when things are on!) is the real sore point here. Take the EPL, the Premier League only allows one provider in NZ even though it would be beneficial for an online service and a Satellite service... Same as HBO etc. I do worry about fragmentation of the services though, take everything away from broadcasters and watch your overall bill go through the roof!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6