Vodafone / SKY merger

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Vodafone / SKY merger

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725377 23-Feb-2017 20:02

mattwnz: I think the issue with sky is, they are are getting beaten by a newer technology that is a lot cheaper, and potentially better content. Their neon service potentially could compete, however they would essentially have to canabilise there satellite service to do this. But that would involve using the sky brand. Then they may not lose customers, but the revenue would be greatly reduced. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have had it good for a long time, but businesses sometimes are forced to change when technology changes. You just need to look at how Spark has adapted, they have had one of the most rocky roads over the last decade, but they have recovered well. The thing is sky is not even ad free, which at one time was their main selling point. The only reason some still have it is because they Are the only providers of much of the live sport content, which has also resulted in a lot of people being turned off watching sport. . They don't need to merge to combine with an ISP either, and as they have said, one way or another they will be by working with The ISP.

I hear you, but..

Newer technology? You mean streaming? It is newer and cooler. But give me satellite any day of the week. Its much simpler. My Sky is direct from the satellite to the MySky box, literally. There are no nodes, miles of cables, hubs and so on. Yes, the internet is the bees knees, but point to point not always.

Internet will be cheaper. But the Optus satellite is old, depreciated, there is no financial need to recover sunk cost, so if Sky can get a super cool deal then go for it.

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Stuck with expensive satellite till 2019.

Technology again. They can go for BB only, SVOD. The MySky boxes were upgraded, they are now satellite and SVOD boxes.

Better Content? That is not relevant. Sky don't do a Lightbox, i.e. TV series only, they don't do Netflix which is TV and moves, but old stuff. Sky do a narrow but wide genre. Not jaffas, not Pineapple lumps, but a party mix. It wont suit TV series bingers, it wont suit movie bingers, but its for those who want a bit of everything, so I don't agree on content. Lightbox, Netflix and Sky are all quite different.

Sport you get FanPass, but ideally they drop the subsidy, charge full price for sport, Basic is $20, sorted

mattwnz

20163 posts

Uber Geek

#1725381 23-Feb-2017 20:11

If you heard Radio NZ this afternoon, Paul,(who used to work for VF) was on it. He suggested Sky give up sport, if they want to get the merger to go through. He thought it failed due to sport, as that is really Skys main strength these days. Then potentially NZ rugby could run their own sports channel like they do for Canadian Hockey. Then they could charge $50-100 per year for an annual subscription, and make money from that. Although I am not so sure that sponsors would be so happy with that?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725402 23-Feb-2017 21:15

Hammerer:

"Sky TV is really bad and I hope they go out of business" might be the only topic that takes the heat off "Vodafone is really bad and I they go out of business"!

To me, this topic looks like a perfect storm of aggrieved customers and ex-customers with many motivated by determined and sometimes spiteful pessimism. If Sky TV's prospects are really that bad then I'm quite sure that they would be presenting something like a new "wild west" scenario to the Commmerce Commmission - fear and uncertainty are usually good motivators.

If Sky TV goes under NZ viewers will generally lose good options and have to pay more for worse options. I much prefer the current and proposed consolidation over increasing fragmentation.

Sky TV's biggest issue, it seems to me, is their commitment to satellite broadcasting. It was needed to keep costs down but is clearly outdated technology for most of us who have access to high-speed broadband. But there are many people who can't replace satellite broadcast with good broadband so it is good that they still have options until at least 2018. I don't think Sky TV has done too badly here because it is notoriously difficult to predict the right time to move from old technology. Even if they didn't choose the 2018 end for the current satellite contract, they've only gone a year or two past the date they should have moved to streaming to most of us. That is a better timeframe than most businesses get hogtied to.

As a Vodafone customer, I think that I will continue to receive good deals for Sky TV whether the merger goes ahead or not. I was determined to leave Vodafone cable for UFB but the deals have been very attractive, both those I've taken up and those I haven't. That looks like continuing.

I favour satellite. Its old, but its great. It also keeps away from NZ bandwidth. If the deal with Optus can't be done, then Sjy will go for "new" technology. This will silence the critics and have 800,000 users using BB instead of not using BB. The rural people will need another solution, as the old ad outdated technology has been retired. Sky, with the set in stone date of 2018/19 is set to stay on satellite, with enhanced services such as free OD, or can move to SVOD in full. They cannot do that before an Optus deal is done or not done. In the meantime, subscriber numbers are not dropping 25% year on year

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725405 23-Feb-2017 21:21

mattwnz: Newer technology? You mean streaming? It is newer and cooler. But give me satellite any day of the week. Its much simpler. My Sky is direct from the satellite to the MySky box, literally. There are no nodes, miles of cables, hubs and so on. Yes, the internet is the bees knees, but point to point not always.

Internet will be cheaper. But the Optus satellite is old, depreciated, there is no financial need to recover sunk cost, so if Sky can get a super cool deal then go for it.

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Stuck with expensive satellite till 2019.

Technology again. They can go for BB only, SVOD. The MySky boxes were upgraded, they are now satellite and SVOD boxes.

Better Content? That is not relevant. Sky don't do a Lightbox, i.e. TV series only, they doing do Netflix which is TV and moves, but old stuff. Sky do a narrow but wide genre. Not jaffas, not Pineapple lumps, but a party mix. It wont suit TV series bingers, it wont suit movie bingers, but its its those who want a bit of everything, so I don't agree on content. Lightbox, Netflix and Sky are all quite different.

Sport you get use FanPass, but ideally they drop the subsidy charge fun, price for sport, Basic is $20, sorted

The satillite is full well past capacity, will get better once all the mpeg2 SD duplicates go away, but still very constrained to what it can fit.

Streaming is also not the be-all, but is great for on demand stuff rather than messing about with a harddrive recorder dumping a transport stream to disk as the data happens to fly past over the air. Sat will be viable for a long time for live stuff, but with more and more people wanting on demand, the recording features of the box become less important. I expect that is the first thing that will get discounted or made free as it becomes less of a requirement, rather than HD which IMO is essential.

Richard rich.ms

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725407 23-Feb-2017 21:26

mattwnz:

Benoire:

mattwnz:
tdgeek:

Benoire:

Now also imagine if/when Sky join the SVOD fully with HD streams; 800K subs streaming over the internet at once in HD... Is our internet actually ready for this, is rain fade going to be replaced by 'buffering' as the new hate word?

LOl yep. Updated from 1980's tech, then your right, its not like it was before. Unknown what the effect on local bandwidth would be. A cheap Optus fee would be better for everyone

The thing is that a 800k subscriber base is tiny, when you compare it to many YouTube channels. Many one person YouTube channels exceed that by many multiples. They may not have the same revenue amount per subscriber, but they potentially have the same reach.

Yes its tiny, but right now, with the population of NZ, how many are actually streaming at peak time vs watching FTA/SKY? 800K could be a huge increase to bandwidth usage.

Many people who have sky subscriptions, actually hardly watch it. I know a lot of elderly who have sky basic, and they say they only watch it once a week. I think the sport watchers will be the people who create the highest demand on it. Movies not so much these days.

Considering the capacity of fibre, I can't see that being a problem. Especially as they could offer SD as the default package which hardly uses anything. They could also have CDNs around NZ with content, so it isn't all coming from the same location.

But the fact is, many people are already watching ondemand video, both paid and ondemand. That number may not change by a large amount, as sky subscribers are already watching on demand programs via other sources. This is somewhat proven by the fact that their subscriber base is dropping, even though NZs population is increasing. So subscribers of sky, don't soley watch sky, they also watch ondemand. Many elderly have ipads, and stream TVNZ ondemand, and that number would be growing all the time, and will eventually hit a peak. The thing that will create the biggest demand on the network though will be 4 and 8k videos.

Can you quantify these points?

Many Sky subscribers don't watch it? many is what? 20%? 50%

You cannot suggest SD as an option, when many Sky "dislikers" complain about SD, and HD and 4k.

CDN's everywhere, for sure, agreed.

Many people are watching OD? How many is many? I have easy options for OD, Apple TV 4, easy. I dint watch OD, I watch programs. I don't chase new technology, cool streaming, I chase content. I could not care less where or who has it. This is why I sigh when I read people here say I ditched Sky as I don't use it. Fool. There got Sky to use it, but the truth be known, they ditched Sky to use another option to save money, so they make do with option 2

If elderly have iPads and stream TVNZ On Demand, why do they have Sky?

Sky is OD. Also PayTV like LB and NF and Neon. Sky is like Apple vs Android a few years ago, its too emotive. Its JUST a TV service, that suits some people, doesnt suit others. Like LB or NF or Neon, or FTA

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725410 23-Feb-2017 21:33

richms:

mattwnz: Newer technology? You mean streaming? It is newer and cooler. But give me satellite any day of the week. Its much simpler. My Sky is direct from the satellite to the MySky box, literally. There are no nodes, miles of cables, hubs and so on. Yes, the internet is the bees knees, but point to point not always.

Internet will be cheaper. But the Optus satellite is old, depreciated, there is no financial need to recover sunk cost, so if Sky can get a super cool deal then go for it.

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Stuck with expensive satellite till 2019.

Technology again. They can go for BB only, SVOD. The MySky boxes were upgraded, they are now satellite and SVOD boxes.

Better Content? That is not relevant. Sky don't do a Lightbox, i.e. TV series only, they doing do Netflix which is TV and moves, but old stuff. Sky do a narrow but wide genre. Not jaffas, not Pineapple lumps, but a party mix. It wont suit TV series bingers, it wont suit movie bingers, but its its those who want a bit of everything, so I don't agree on content. Lightbox, Netflix and Sky are all quite different.

Sport you get use FanPass, but ideally they drop the subsidy charge fun, price for sport, Basic is $20, sorted

The satillite is full well past capacity, will get better once all the mpeg2 SD duplicates go away, but still very constrained to what it can fit.

Streaming is also not the be-all, but is great for on demand stuff rather than messing about with a harddrive recorder dumping a transport stream to disk as the data happens to fly past over the air. Sat will be viable for a long time for live stuff, but with more and more people wanting on demand, the recording features of the box become less important. I expect that is the first thing that will get discounted or made free as it becomes less of a requirement, rather than HD which IMO is essential.

Interesting points.

Recording I find great. Its real, its 4 metres from me, its not affected by anything internet. It doesnt use bandwidth. It always works. Quality is excellent. No buffering, no "dad can you restart the router" and so on.

Live streaming is rubbish. The internet cannot provide smooth, buffer free live broadcast. It can provide smooth OD as that is buffered. But Sky cannot do satellite AND SVOD

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1725413 23-Feb-2017 21:37

tdgeek:

Live streaming is rubbish. The internet cannot provide smooth, buffer free live broadcast. It can provide smooth OD as that is buffered. But Sky cannot do satellite AND SVOD

You're wrong. "The Internet" can and does provide smooth, buffer free live broadcasts. It just doesn't do it on every platform. I watched the entire Bathurst event a couple of years on a (legit/paid) 1080p live stream and didn't have a single buffering event or glitch the whole race.

That said, I frequently use SkyGo and it's a crapshoot. Some days it's smooth and goes for hours, and some days it is jerky, buffers, stops every so often, logs me out etc... The picture quality is also crap. probably the equivalent of a bad, highly compressed SD Sky signal"

But don't blame the Internet for a bad implementation of a streaming platform/solution.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

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.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725420 23-Feb-2017 22:01

Talkiet:

tdgeek:

Live streaming is rubbish. The internet cannot provide smooth, buffer free live broadcast. It can provide smooth OD as that is buffered. But Sky cannot do satellite AND SVOD

You're wrong. "The Internet" can and does provide smooth, buffer free live broadcasts. It just doesn't do it on every platform. I watched the entire Bathurst event a couple of years on a (legit/paid) 1080p live stream and didn't have a single buffering event or glitch the whole race.

That said, I frequently use SkyGo and it's a crapshoot. Some days it's smooth and goes for hours, and some days it is jerky, buffers, stops every so often, logs me out etc... The picture quality is also crap. probably the equivalent of a bad, highly compressed SD Sky signal"

But don't blame the Internet for a bad implementation of a streaming platform/solution.

Cheers - N

I found F1 on Fanpass rubbish. Well 7/10 at best commuted to Sky Sport via satellite. I found cricket in India worse than rubbish, I assume that was the other end? I found golf ok, it was sharp as a tack, but had judder. These were all live. What I assumed, correct me if I am wrong, is that a live stream has to be perfect. Frame by frame. From across the ditch to across the globe. The interwebs go through a myriad of distance and connect points. Should live streaming be not live, as in a 10 or 30 second buffer, all that is resolved. Satellite is literally one point to point, the satellite to my decoder

I find SkyGo fine, thats on an iPad with the app. Anything on a PC or browser I hate. Judder.

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1725423 23-Feb-2017 22:06

tdgeek:

I found F1 on Fanpass rubbish. Well 7/10 at best commuted to Sky Sport via satellite. I found cricket in India worse than rubbish, I assume that was the other end? I found golf ok, it was sharp as a tack, but had judder. These were all live. What I assumed, correct me if I am wrong, is that a live stream has to be perfect. Frame by frame. From across the ditch to across the globe. The interwebs go through a myriad of distance and connect points. Should live streaming be not live, as in a 10 or 30 second buffer, all that is resolved. Satellite is literally one point to point, the satellite to my decoder

I find SkyGo fine, thats on an iPad with the app. Anything on a PC or browser I hate. Judder.

Remember that "Live" on Sky (satellite) isn't truly live either. There's anything from a few seconds to quite a few seconds delay - not to mention long run live events that sometimes stack ads in and push out "Live" to several minutes delayed.

My understanding was that the Bathurst even I watched was about a minute or so behind live. That's "Good Enough" for me.

I was just pointing out that your statement that the Internet wasn't good enough was too general... There are some many live streaming solutions today that aren't great, and there is the odd one that is great. It's possible. At the time I was on a 35Mbps VDSL connection.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725427 23-Feb-2017 22:13

Talkiet:

tdgeek:

I found F1 on Fanpass rubbish. Well 7/10 at best commuted to Sky Sport via satellite. I found cricket in India worse than rubbish, I assume that was the other end? I found golf ok, it was sharp as a tack, but had judder. These were all live. What I assumed, correct me if I am wrong, is that a live stream has to be perfect. Frame by frame. From across the ditch to across the globe. The interwebs go through a myriad of distance and connect points. Should live streaming be not live, as in a 10 or 30 second buffer, all that is resolved. Satellite is literally one point to point, the satellite to my decoder

I find SkyGo fine, thats on an iPad with the app. Anything on a PC or browser I hate. Judder.

Remember that "Live" on Sky (satellite) isn't truly live either. There's anything from a few seconds to quite a few seconds delay - not to mention long run live events that sometimes stack ads in and push out "Live" to several minutes delayed.

My understanding was that the Bathurst even I watched was about a minute or so behind live. That's "Good Enough" for me.

I was just pointing out that your statement that the Internet wasn't good enough was too general... There are some many live streaming solutions today that aren't great, and there is the odd one that is great. It's possible. At the time I was on a 35Mbps VDSL connection.

Cheers - N

Thanks Neil, fair enough. I assumed that in general Live was Live. To me, a live RWC final that is 60 seconds or more behind and plays perfect, ie. as it is buffered, is perfect. After turning texts off....

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1725430 23-Feb-2017 22:17

Interestingly I watched some cricket a short while ago and tried to sync up the Alternative Commentary Collective. It wasn't possible. The ACC was well ahead of the SkyGo feed and the ACC feed couldn't be paused or delayed. (Used to be able to do it on some of the phone apps, but doesn't work anymore - at least not for me)... So even a few seconds stuffed me there.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725431 23-Feb-2017 22:18

tdgeek:

I found F1 on Fanpass rubbish. Well 7/10 at best commuted to Sky Sport via satellite. I found cricket in India worse than rubbish, I assume that was the other end? I found golf ok, it was sharp as a tack, but had judder. These were all live. What I assumed, correct me if I am wrong, is that a live stream has to be perfect. Frame by frame.

Nope, and skys broadcasts are far from frame by frame as they butcher everything down to a 50i stream from what would normally be a 60p source.

tdgeek:

From across the ditch to across the globe. The interwebs go through a myriad of distance and connect points. Should live streaming be not live, as in a 10 or 30 second buffer, all that is resolved. Satellite is literally one point to point, the satellite to my decoder

I find SkyGo fine, thats on an iPad with the app. Anything on a PC or browser I hate. Judder.

Plenty of buffers in the sky network as things go thru various encoders etc, which require a look ahead so they can split the meager satilite bandwidth per transponder down to the various streams that are being forced into it. None of that matters online where you just set the bitrates on each stream and let the client choose between them if the clients connection to the CDN is trash, whereas on sat everyone suffers poor quality lower resolution when the encoders decide that the bits are more important on another channel instead of the one you are watching.

Richard rich.ms

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725434 23-Feb-2017 22:21

tdgeek:

I find SkyGo fine, thats on an iPad with the app. Anything on a PC or browser I hate. Judder.

Chances are you are outputting 60p from the PC, and getting a 50p or 25p stream from sky which will always judder badly. Not many PC solutions set the output rate to match the source especially when playing in a browser rather than something like plex. Having the rates match is essential to having smooth playback, but then its only as good as their turning 60 into 50 is, which for things with a small ball on a large field can be quite poor sometimes with mulitple balls appearing onscreen occasionally as they pan past it. 50Hz modes need to be left in history along with the analog broadcasting formats they were based on as those conversions are never lossless and when done badly can really mess up furthur processing in displays to remove judder by upconverting to 120 or 240Hz refreshes.

Richard rich.ms

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1725436 23-Feb-2017 22:23

I 'live' stream a few sports and usually deliberately start the game a couple of minutes later to get a better quality stream. I do this with Rugby Pass and the quality is really good. I might get 1 or 2 stoppages but only a for a couple of seconds. I did the same with Premier League Pass. NFL has a good service, excellent HD picture live.

I believe SKY provides a superior viewing experience though. Better quality picture and more consistent quality than online. I'll probably sign up to that discount offer soon to get super rugby and the Lions tour.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725437 23-Feb-2017 22:34

richms:

tdgeek:

I find SkyGo fine, thats on an iPad with the app. Anything on a PC or browser I hate. Judder.

Chances are you are outputting 60p from the PC, and getting a 50p or 25p stream from sky which will always judder badly. Not many PC solutions set the output rate to match the source especially when playing in a browser rather than something like plex. Having the rates match is essential to having smooth playback, but then its only as good as their turning 60 into 50 is, which for things with a small ball on a large field can be quite poor sometimes with mulitple balls appearing onscreen occasionally as they pan past it. 50Hz modes need to be left in history along with the analog broadcasting formats they were based on as those conversions are never lossless and when done badly can really mess up furthur processing in displays to remove judder by upconverting to 120 or 240Hz refreshes.

Tks. I understood most of that!

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11