Sky Getting Cheaper??

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky Getting Cheaper??

1 | 2 | 3

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1947781 28-Jan-2018 10:14

Dratsab:

tdgeek: I like Basic. If I wasnt into sport and Basic was $25 I'd get it, just to have the docos and some other bits handy if wanted.

There's some assumptions going on here. I'm assuming you're talking about History, NatGeo etc. You're assuming these channels will be available on a new basic package. You've stated above you give credence to the source, so it would pay to remember:

The source said that the new basic package would offer a stripped back version of the channel portfolio currently offered under the basic tier.

I've no doubt Sky have viewing habit metrics fed back to them via their STB's so they know where the value lies. I would imagine a 'stripped back version' would contain a lot of the less popular channels. On the upside, the mass of adverts would still be there though :-)

Im aware of point 1, it was just a comment re Basic. I also mentioned if they reduced the price and content thats not a real saving. Its more an enticement for sports followers to get Sky. Its also likely they would drop the Sky Deals, so the $50 with HD we get them becomes $75, with less Basic content. There would be winners and losers. If they reduced Basic too much I would look at what they have to offer with sport SVOD. Fanpass. I didnt like Fanpass when I had it, video quality wise. And I need to record or get what I wanted OD

matisyahu

1640 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 355

Trusted

#1947808 28-Jan-2018 11:41

quickymart:

There are still lots of places that have slow (or non-existent) broadband. If it was 100% coverage then I'd say yes, great idea. But switching off the satellite service would leave a large number of people locked out entirely.

Hence this part of my post: "thus leaving maybe a small handful of users who are in the rural areas" hence you keep it for those who are outside of the fibre areas.

I don't think Lightbox and Neon would merge, although it's an interesting idea.

It would give Lightbox access to a wider portfolio of programming and Sky TV would be able to drastically reduce its headcount in terms of support personal (call centre etc) plus gain a sales channel through Spark plus the ability for Spark to have live streaming of events/sports etc.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1947810 28-Jan-2018 11:47

matisyahu:

quickymart:

There are still lots of places that have slow (or non-existent) broadband. If it was 100% coverage then I'd say yes, great idea. But switching off the satellite service would leave a large number of people locked out entirely.

Hence this part of my post: "thus leaving maybe a small handful of users who are in the rural areas" hence you keep it for those who are outside of the fibre areas.

I don't think Lightbox and Neon would merge, although it's an interesting idea.

It would give Lightbox access to a wider portfolio of programming and Sky TV would be able to drastically reduce its headcount in terms of support personal (call centre etc) plus gain a sales channel through Spark plus the ability for Spark to have live streaming of events/sports etc.

You cant keep satellite for a handful of users. Freeview is satellite, so they have TV

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 945

Lifetime subscriber

#1947818 28-Jan-2018 12:02

Unless Sky gets more money from areas with poor internet then what satellite transmission costs then they won't be keeping satellite. It's not the maximising profit decision.

Basic has near 0 value for me, so if they reduce the content and price it will make it cheaper to get to the movies package, which is my main interest.
If they did Zone channel like box sets, no adds, and HD it would've been a golden channel, box sets - don't want to be up all night to watch series and if record takes up a lot of space.

Can't see Sky doing deals with Spark when their entire focus in that area is Vodafone. Just my opinion.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1947831 28-Jan-2018 12:49

Sport is the only real point of differentiation they have, they need to be offering every other piece of content they have for $15/month, with reasonable priced access to sport, especially on a casual basis. Sadly Sky have shown very little ability to adapt and understand the changing market, I fully expect any new "discount" pricing they offer to still be unrealistic when compared to the realities of the market now. Their competitors are Netflix and The Pirate Bay, and no-one is ever going to go back to paying the stupidly large amount of money they want.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1947832 28-Jan-2018 12:59

So divide up the cost of the satellite across the remaining sat customers subs, put it on its own line so those people can see what they pay over the urban people, and let them either organize their own backhaul to internet, give up sky, or pay for the service. Otherwise it becomes again a case of urban people propping up rural infrastructure. Charge people the channel fees, then stick on one cost for UFB and another for sat.

If they dropped the movies and endless repeat channels from satellite they would free up quite a bit of space they could stop leasing when the contract is up. Use what they have more intelligently with pushing shows down to boxes for the fake ondemand viewing for the endless repeat channels and movies and stop wasting capacity playing the same thing out 4 times a day.

Richard rich.ms

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#1947833 28-Jan-2018 13:03

The best thing Sky can do is actually set the packages to the price that actually represents them, no hiding the cost of sports and perhaps movies in the basic package... Instead charge sports the true price and bring the other prices down. It won't change people like myself who want Sky and is prepared to pay for it, but it might give them that entry price in to the basic realm... and they need to drop the HD/decoder charges otherwise basic will still be $40+.

Sports will never be cheap, the owners of the rights want their 'fair' share and globally you can see media companies tieing up regions for exclusivity... Look how much BEin costs per month for just some of the the football leagues. Effectively reasonably priced access to Sport will be the sports sub set at the rate that allows them to compete and make some money.

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

#1947847 28-Jan-2018 14:45

matisyahu:

quickymart:

There are still lots of places that have slow (or non-existent) broadband. If it was 100% coverage then I'd say yes, great idea. But switching off the satellite service would leave a large number of people locked out entirely.

Hence this part of my post: "thus leaving maybe a small handful of users who are in the rural areas" hence you keep it for those who are outside of the fibre areas.

I don't think Lightbox and Neon would merge, although it's an interesting idea.

It would give Lightbox access to a wider portfolio of programming and Sky TV would be able to drastically reduce its headcount in terms of support personal (call centre etc) plus gain a sales channel through Spark plus the ability for Spark to have live streaming of events/sports etc.

Currently 75% fibre availability and current uptake only 33%. NZ'ers able to access fibre by 2024 is 85% - that is not just a handful.

We are only 20 minutes from the centre of Manukau City and there is no current timeframe when it will be available to us.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16315

Lifetime subscriber

#1947854 28-Jan-2018 15:12

tdgeek:

You cant keep satellite for a handful of users. Freeview is satellite, so they have TV

This I think is the heart of the matter. Sky doesn't owe anyone TV reception. It is a commercial venture. If it pulls out of satellite it could save a hell of a lot on overheads. The minority of people in remote areas would still have Freeview satellite so it's not like they would be cut off from civilisation. Here is an added thought: Why have a dedicated satellite TV service at all? Why not just use satellite broadband for IPTV? At the rate communications technology is developing, it will be feasible soon, if it isn't already.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

#1947855 28-Jan-2018 15:18

Rikkitic:

Why not just use satellite broadband for IPTV? At the rate communications technology is developing, it will be feasible soon, if it isn't already.

Noooooooooo..... there are already too many things in Space already after last weekend.

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#1947861 28-Jan-2018 15:48

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

You cant keep satellite for a handful of users. Freeview is satellite, so they have TV

This I think is the heart of the matter. Sky doesn't owe anyone TV reception. It is a commercial venture. If it pulls out of satellite it could save a hell of a lot on overheads. The minority of people in remote areas would still have Freeview satellite so it's not like they would be cut off from civilisation. Here is an added thought: Why have a dedicated satellite TV service at all? Why not just use satellite broadband for IPTV? At the rate communications technology is developing, it will be feasible soon, if it isn't already.

Satellite connections have terrible latency and so suck for two way communication of data that requires fine tolerances. DVB distribution over satellite is a fine system as its one to many and sent out only. if you had to then communicate back to a server, it would add considerable time to the connection which can cause all sorts of problems with TCP/IP comms.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1947863 28-Jan-2018 16:04

And it’s altitude is 36000 km.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1947898 28-Jan-2018 17:13

Easy way to get more satellite capacity would be to stop broadcasting the freeview channels in HD, and just display the FTA SD streams instead.

As for advertising, most of the adds back when I had sky were simply promos for other programs on that channel. Meaning sky were not earning any extra revenue from running those adds. Yet were annoying their customers by keeping those adds

As for fibre, Sky will have to eventually move to full fibre distribution. As they don't have enough satellite capacity to even do HD properly. How are they going to eventually broadcast in UHD?

RunningMan

9186 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4840

#1947900 28-Jan-2018 17:33

Rikkitic: [snip]If it pulls out of satellite it could save a hell of a lot on overheads. The minority of people in remote areas would still have Freeview satellite so it's not like they would be cut off from civilisation.

Not for long they wouldn't. Sky pay for the bulk of the transponder space on Optus D1, with the Freeview transponders a minority. If Optus lost Sky as a customer on D1, Optus may move the satellite somewhere more profitable - bye bye TV for rural viewers.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16315

Lifetime subscriber

#1947905 28-Jan-2018 17:48

And in steps Rocket Lab with their super-cheap minisatellite launches. Yes, I know they are low orbit and not geostationary but technology doesn't stand still. Just because broadcast satellites used to cost a fortune doesn't mean they always will. There are lots of alternatives in the pipeline.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3