sdavisnz:

ockel:

 

sdavisnz: What a waste of money, with ufb and rbi, and a android TV stb's getting so good and so cheap, if I was running sky I would ditch sat at 2021. It's pretty much end of life by then.

Sky need to focus on 4k delivery , a price attractive for millions of subscribers and availability on every device available to consumers.

People dont want another device , they want to install an app on the device they already have, and will continue to upgrade every few years as the tech gets better, how old is mysky hdi, 10 years? Its massive, clunky, not upgradable, not 4k, not attractive.

I left sky 3 years ago because they were a RIP off and no 4k support

It's nearly 2019 and they still have no 4k product , what a joke

No one cares about your satellite bro.

 

 

 

Interesting viewpoint.  Do you think that Freeview will abandon satellite when the current Optus sat reaches end of life, or will it look to renew capacity for another 10 years?  Will Freeview rely on DTT, UFB and RBI such that its members can reach all households [Hint RBI spending $130m for the last 10,000 households vs $5m pa per transponder for broadcast satellite coverage].   Sky has indicated that it thinks satellite is the best method for reaching the last 200,000 households that it thinks will be poorly served by UFB - thats $20m pa for 200,000 households.  Do the math.  Does it make sense or should Sky tell those households that carriage is the householders problem?

 

 

 

WRT 4K - do you think Sky will lead broadcasters in 4K or follow Mediaworks and TVNZ?  Hint Mediaworks went first on HD, then Sky and finally TVNZ.  What financial benefit do you attribute to HD for those broadcasters and do you think this will positively or negatively impact their planning horizon?  Do any broadcasters even stream in 4K?  What degree of HD do they livestream in?  Library?  Why do you think that Sky will act any differently to those other broadcasters - and why?

 

Sorry, been distracted tonight.

Not sure about freeview sat, maybe that will stay, its probably pretty cheap as they didnt rent much space on it, being sd and all , I'm sure it's not the focus.


I think dtt will get more investment as it's still a relatively new tech for kiwis. It's probably got another 20 years in it.

On sky does it make sense to spend 20m for 200k people a year, no, if you want sport or movies you will find a way.

Do I think sky will lead in 4k, no as I said there useless, should they lead tvnz and mediaworks, yes, they have paying subscribers , money should equal quality, and a number of pixels on a screen is a number I look at.

I think most providers in NZ cheap out on the CDN, and it reflects in the quality of product, look at the players who invest in CDN like Netflix, 4k hdr no problem. Sure sport delivery is tougher, but when you reallocate 200million into a good CDN I'm sure it would do fine.

Thanks - appreciate the thoughts.  I dont personally see that the DTT footprint will expand from its current form in NZ.  No economic rationale.  

Most important question would have been "What financial benefit do you attribute to HD for those broadcasters and do you think this will positively or negatively impact their planning horizon?"  Everyone is served by self interest.  Self interests of the consumer demand more, better, cheaper.  Self interests of the producers - profit maximisation.  So putting yourself in any broadcasters shoes (while putting your interests as a broadcaster first) - what did you gain from HD and what would you gain from 4K?