Big drop in Sky subscribers

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Big drop in Sky subscribers

1 | ... | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | ... | 45

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559563 25-May-2016 19:24

Fred99:

debeeriz:

Why did I leave sky, Reason because up until recently I believed all the blurb about geoblocking being illegal. Then a guy at work showed us how to get legally all the sport, tv shows and movies that sky shows for the cost of a vpn/geoblocking service. and it does not cost another $25 a month for every screen i want to show it on

I don't believe that is morally ok.

Geoblocking of most "entertainment" content for sure - go for it. There's no legitimate reason for differential pricing.

Sport events - no - there's a legitimate reason for geoblocking / differential pricing,I wouldn't pay 0.05c to watch Uzbekistan play Kurdistan i n their game of whatever it might be, and I wouldn't expect that people over there would want to watch a Bledisloe cup match. OTOH if they could access NZ live stream to watch their local game, and we could use their livestream to watch our rugby, then you've destroyed professional sports main source of revenue. I'm saying this from the position of not being a sport fanatic and not even caring much if it all vanished from screens, but plenty of people do care, and sabotaging them isn't fair.

It was Kurdistan 3-1, FYI :-)

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559587 25-May-2016 19:28

Pondering, but still sorta on topic.

What if Sky went full SVOD from Satellite, how would that affect daily internet?? While many of us have downloaded stuff from "alternate sources" what happens when the TV goes on and blares away while kids play, tea gets cooked, hubby in the manshed, and all of this is streaming?? No one watching it, its just on.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1559614 25-May-2016 20:03

tdgeek:

Fred99:

debeeriz:

Why did I leave sky, Reason because up until recently I believed all the blurb about geoblocking being illegal. Then a guy at work showed us how to get legally all the sport, tv shows and movies that sky shows for the cost of a vpn/geoblocking service. and it does not cost another $25 a month for every screen i want to show it on

I don't believe that is morally ok.

Geoblocking of most "entertainment" content for sure - go for it. There's no legitimate reason for differential pricing.

Sport events - no - there's a legitimate reason for geoblocking / differential pricing, I wouldn't pay 0.05c to watch Uzbekistan play Kurdistan in their game of whatever it might be, and I wouldn't expect that people over there would want to watch a Bledisloe cup match. OTOH if they could access NZ live stream to watch their local game, and we could use their livestream to watch our rugby, then you've destroyed professional sports main source of revenue. I'm saying this from the position of not being a sport fanatic and not even caring much if it all vanished from screens, but plenty of people do care, and sabotaging them isn't fair.

? But you said "Geoblocking of most "entertainment" content for sure - go for it. There's no legitimate reason for differential pricing."

But its ok for sport? Sport is entertainment, and while I don't know enough about Movie and TV rights payments (being excessive or not) some sports are rorting.

Sky was going to cancel IVESCO (V8 Supercars) a few years back as what they wanted was uber excessive. Rikkitic and I have battled over cost plus margin vs what the market will bear, but in my example of IVESCO they have tried to screw everyone for the last piece of blood from that stone. That is what the market will bear and then some. Many of these issues we debate do come back to the rights owners, not the Sky or Netflix or Lightbox. What I do admire is Wimbledon. They are FTA, as Wimbledon want the spectacle to as many viewers as possible,they arent chasing the last dime like many top sports are.

Wimbledon is an interesting case study. It has bounced from FTA to paytv and back again. The live rights gained fewer viewers for Sky than broadcasting replays the next day (ie delayed). Obviously there is a significant price difference between live and delayed. So a lower live rights price from FTA was still better than the delayed rights price from Sky. Hence its on FTA. I'm not sure that Sky would even bid for live anymore - to do so would only be as a price spoiler (artifically drive up the price to hurt the competitor). I think you'll find that the rights distributor will still be seeking top dollar but the bidding profile within the market has changed.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

rugrat

3100 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1559623 25-May-2016 20:18

tdgeek:

Pondering, but still sorta on topic.

What if Sky went full SVOD from Satellite, how would that affect daily internet?? While many of us have downloaded stuff from "alternate sources" what happens when the TV goes on and blares away while kids play, tea gets cooked, hubby in the manshed, and all of this is streaming?? No one watching it, its just on.

I'm not sure but isn't that how Vodafone does their TV. They have a way of sending one stream down the fibre, and everyone just tunes into that one stream.

If it's live viewing it seems a real waste of resources that each new person watching is another stream.

Other then that if it puts everything back to speed before fibre was introduced then something will have to be done, back to data caps, or price of broadband goes up if money needed to be spent to increase capability to keep up. I don't know the limitations of fibre.

Even having download and watch later, would be better then peak streaming. Sky on demand with the mysky is the only one I know that allows this at moment. Tivo use to but looks like that ones dying.

I watched Banshee and GoT Monday night, there was no coming up next before program finish, or writing advertising Sky on Demand during program, maybe a fluke but hoping they're starting to learn what annoys some people.

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559669 25-May-2016 20:51

rugrat:

tdgeek:

Pondering, but still sorta on topic.

What if Sky went full SVOD from Satellite, how would that affect daily internet?? While many of us have downloaded stuff from "alternate sources" what happens when the TV goes on and blares away while kids play, tea gets cooked, hubby in the manshed, and all of this is streaming?? No one watching it, its just on.

I'm not sure but isn't that how Vodafone does their TV. They have a way of sending one stream down the fibre, and everyone just tunes into that one stream.

If it's live viewing it seems a real waste of resources that each new person watching is another stream.

Other then that if it puts everything back to speed before fibre was introduced then something will have to be done, back to data caps, or price of broadband goes up if money needed to be spent to increase capability to keep up. I don't know the limitations of fibre.

Even having download and watch later, would be better then peak streaming. Sky on demand with the mysky is the only one I know that allows this at moment. Tivo use to but looks like that ones dying.

I watched Banshee and GoT Monday night, there was no coming up next before program finish, or writing advertising Sky on Demand during program, maybe a fluke but hoping they're starting to learn what annoys some people.

Its interesting. What can fibre handle? Last mile? Sky OD does download which I thought was weird, but that does allow a buffer so that you play from the STB rather then the internet. Hopefully some one can advise the capability at the last mile, at the fibre cabinet etc. It doesnt matter if GB and TB get wasted by a TV being on, its about congestion.

Ipv89

141 posts

Master Geek

#1560217 26-May-2016 18:49

This does not surprise me at all, times are changing and if you do not keep up you get left behind.

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1561092 28-May-2016 09:11

Ipv89:

This does not surprise me at all, times are changing and if you do not keep up you get left behind.

Yes thats correct. Whats your take on whats changing and what they need to do to keep up

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

quickymart

13785 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1561303 28-May-2016 16:52

I think a pick-and-mix option would be a good start. Basic is far too expensive and Soho should be included as part of Basic (at a minimum). Pricing should be different for people like me, who don't care about sport but could watch the occasional movie.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1562362 30-May-2016 14:27

tdgeek:

Pondering, but still sorta on topic.

What if Sky went full SVOD from Satellite, how would that affect daily internet?? While many of us have downloaded stuff from "alternate sources" what happens when the TV goes on and blares away while kids play, tea gets cooked, hubby in the manshed, and all of this is streaming?? No one watching it, its just on.

Happens in my house already with YouTube. Turn the TV on and flick back to the AFTV to find YouTube automatically playing the next video. Thankfully I'm on unlimited but that month was a good 300+ GB (normally around 200GB). I've no idea how many times it's happened!

Procrastination eventually pays off.

richms

28066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562373 30-May-2016 14:52

I often have the same twitch stream running on several devices because I still haven't fully got HDMI around the house. Often for hours at a time. Source quality. All works fine.

Richard rich.ms

Benoire

2777 posts

Uber Geek

#1562378 30-May-2016 15:06

I guess the question more so is if 800,000+ subscribers suddenly where streaming Soho in HD (at least 4.2mbps), what would that do for the infrastructure? Could the existing NZ internet backbone deal with that much volume? Are the datacentre links big enough? Are rural areas capable?

Edited: removed Sky Sports and replaced with Soho as that is probably more appropriate for main subs.

Jaxson

8018 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1562386 30-May-2016 15:19

StarBlazer:

to find YouTube automatically playing the next video.

You can turn that off I think on your account, which might be of use or might not be something you want to do anyway.

I just found out the chromecast sucks around 7GB a month on those pretty background cycling photos, even when you're not watching it (hdmi port is not active).

I wonder when sky will twig fully that their business model is now outdated. It worked when satellite and set top box were the only delivery mechanisms, but it's excluding potential additional (maybe non subscription even) customers now they can receive Sky's product via another path.

That really came into it's own when you saw the uproar over the recent boxing streaming saga. Sky has a product that lots of NZ'rs want, but they limit it to only existing customers (thereby excluding any new business) and then make existing customers pay for it again (thereby limiting the eventual consumption even more). Really weird and short sighted business strategy. And then to add insult to injury, they do that flawed logic maths and say 100,000 viewed the dodgy stream, and we were charging $50 for it, so therefore we're out of pocket by $5 million dollars. This is sounding like an Austen Powers movie.

Because clearly all those people who didn't pay were already Sky subscribers, and would have paid $50 on top of their existing subscription...
It's like watching the music industry 'piracy' battle from 10 years ago. (Only minus any ships and nautical swashbuckling adventures).

The way it's advertised, $45 Sky 'Base Package' is now essentially paying for the satellite delivery mechanism and a local PVR, which seems unnecessary if you're paying for a completely viable fast broadband alternative package now already.

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562468 30-May-2016 16:55

Benoire:

I guess the question more so is if 800,000+ subscribers suddenly where streaming Soho in HD (at least 4.2mbps), what would that do for the infrastructure? Could the existing NZ internet backbone deal with that much volume? Are the datacentre links big enough? Are rural areas capable?

Edited: removed Sky Sports and replaced with Soho as that is probably more appropriate for main subs.

Thats where I was coming from. Oddly, last night I was watching tennis on FanPass, this morning I wondered why the ATV4 wasn't asleep. It was still playing from the iPad. Oh well. Quite chuffed it only used 8% of the iPad battery

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562471 30-May-2016 17:00

Jaxson:

StarBlazer:

to find YouTube automatically playing the next video.

You can turn that off I think on your account, which might be of use or might not be something you want to do anyway.

I just found out the chromecast sucks around 7GB a month on those pretty background cycling photos, even when you're not watching it (hdmi port is not active).

I wonder when sky will twig fully that their business model is now outdated. It worked when satellite and set top box were the only delivery mechanisms, but it's excluding potential additional (maybe non subscription even) customers now they can receive Sky's product via another path.

That really came into it's own when you saw the uproar over the recent boxing streaming saga. Sky has a product that lots of NZ'rs want, but they limit it to only existing customers (thereby excluding any new business) and then make existing customers pay for it again (thereby limiting the eventual consumption even more). Really weird and short sighted business strategy. And then to add insult to injury, they do that flawed logic maths and say 100,000 viewed the dodgy stream, and we were charging $50 for it, so therefore we're out of pocket by $5 million dollars. This is sounding like an Austen Powers movie.

Because clearly all those people who didn't pay were already Sky subscribers, and would have paid $50 on top of their existing subscription...
It's like watching the music industry 'piracy' battle from 10 years ago. (Only minus any ships and nautical swashbuckling adventures).

The way it's advertised, $45 Sky 'Base Package' is now essentially paying for the satellite delivery mechanism and a local PVR, which seems unnecessary if you're paying for a completely viable fast broadband alternative package now already.

I dont think its outdated at all. The cost to provide satellite is outdated. If Sky keep satellite it will only be because Optus get with the times. Im sure its all now a sunk cost. It doesnt require an app to be reinstalled when it fails, as my Netflix app did the other night,no connection, everything else was fine. Te STB wont freeze as often as a computer based device will. I don't recall my long held MySky ever freezing. It can output once to everyone, that solves the congestion issue. Yes, they can have less SD and more HD. Its a fine and capable delivery system. The quality that you get from say a rugger game or movie in HD will always be like that, no glitches, no buffering.

The boxing issue was the rights holder yelling and screaming, and I assume they held the rights to be Sky PPV only.

Benoire

2777 posts

Uber Geek

#1562507 30-May-2016 17:44

I quite like the Satellite distribution method, but then that is because I don't actually use the Sky Box and don't have to pay for multiroom either; but I do have the rest of the package.

Moving to an internet based package would be fine, although I would lose the central distribution facility but with streaming that wouldn't be such a problem except for longer term storage of programs and films if Sky only have limited time spans on content (which they currently do on SkyGo/Decoder).

1 | ... | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | ... | 45