Sky TV Testing on a different satellite

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky TV Testing on a different satellite

1 | 2 | 3

4049 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2261340 20-Jun-2019 10:43

cyril7:

Lota drama to repoint dishes, and did Sky not just resign a 10yr deal with Optus, seems a bit odd to change RF provider.

Cyril

It would still be one way to stop people getting Sky just to get a dish installed then cancel to use Freeview

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32155 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261342 20-Jun-2019 10:45

eracode:

networkn:

I am wondering what the benefits of a new satellite are? From a personal perspective, I'd hope it added capacity so we could have more, higher resolution channels. Things like History and Food TV, though somewhat interestingly, I don't think I've seen Food TV broadcast in HD on any service here or when staying overseas. I am unsure if that's because they don't record in HD, but even the most basic of recording hardware does at least 720P now.

Food TV is one of those channels where HD content would be a huge advantage ...

.... to you foodies. For the rest of us, not so much.😀

Right, but as I stated, it was from MY perspective.

Since the cost isn't likely to change as a result of the satelitte, what perceived benefits of a new system would you expect if not for more bandwidth? More complete coverage?

nzkc

1548 posts

Uber Geek

#2261344 20-Jun-2019 10:46

tdgeek:

Seriously??

trusted friend told me that someone, who has links into the corporate and finance markets doesn't sound like a chinese whisper to me.

Yes. Seriously. Read into what you want. For me, its meaningless. I get SkyTV are going through a transition and lots of rumours will come out of that. No point in paying much attention to them until there's hard facts. There's no facts there so its worthless. Some rumours will turn out to be true, others wont. Not point in getting hyped about rumours.

tdgeek

29556 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261347 20-Jun-2019 10:49

nzkc:

tdgeek:

Seriously??

trusted friend told me that someone, who has links into the corporate and finance markets doesn't sound like a chinese whisper to me.

Yes. Seriously. Read into what you want. For me, its meaningless. I get SkyTV are going through a transition and lots of rumours will come out of that. No point in paying much attention to them until there's hard facts. There's no facts there so its worthless. Some rumours will turn out to be true, others wont. Not point in getting hyped about rumours.

No one is getting hyped up. It makes sense and it didnt come from a dog. Its slightly different than the last x years of rumours. As stated "FWIW"

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8706 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2261349 20-Jun-2019 10:51

networkn:

eracode:

networkn:

I am wondering what the benefits of a new satellite are? From a personal perspective, I'd hope it added capacity so we could have more, higher resolution channels. Things like History and Food TV, though somewhat interestingly, I don't think I've seen Food TV broadcast in HD on any service here or when staying overseas. I am unsure if that's because they don't record in HD, but even the most basic of recording hardware does at least 720P now.

Food TV is one of those channels where HD content would be a huge advantage ...

.... to you foodies. For the rest of us, not so much.😀

Right, but as I stated, it was from MY perspective.

Since the cost isn't likely to change as a result of the satelitte, what perceived benefits of a new system would you expect if not for more bandwidth? More complete coverage?

Ribbing aside, I totally agree with you - would love to see more, higher-resolution channels. Long overdue.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

tdgeek

29556 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261353 20-Jun-2019 10:57

Oh, and that full app too thanks

old3eyes

9110 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2261366 20-Jun-2019 11:15

networkn:

I am wondering what the benefits of a new satellite are? From a personal perspective, I'd hope it added capacity so we could have more, higher resolution channels. Things like History and Food TV, though somewhat interestingly, I don't think I've seen Food TV broadcast in HD on any service here or when staying overseas. I am unsure if that's because they don't record in HD, but even the most basic of recording hardware does at least 720P now.

Food TV is one of those channels where HD content would be a huge advantage.

Along with "SmelloVision" :-)

Regards,

Old3eyes

tripper1000

1600 posts

Uber Geek

#2261372 20-Jun-2019 11:31

networkn: Right, but as I stated, it was from MY perspective.

Since the cost isn't likely to change as a result of the satelitte, what perceived benefits of a new system would you expect if not for more bandwidth? More complete coverage?

There are dozens of reasons why sky might be transmitting on another satellite.

1) A new operator would have to undercut Optus/offer better value for the same money to convince Sky to go to all the trouble of changing.

Satellite costs are not insignificant and are the same regardless of falling numbers of subscribers. They won't survive broadcasting at a loss, so they have to do raise subscribes, cut satellite costs or both.

2nd possibility: It could also be a new back-up satellite. Has anyone checked how much life is left in the present backup satellite?

3rd possibility: Perhaps some of Optus satellites are going timex and aren't going to be replaced on a one for one basis.

4th possibility: It could be spook Optus thinking they're about to loose a customer and offer a better deal.

5th possibility: Sky could be testing new codecs, new STB's, new uplink paths, new uplink equipment, or testing new down links for a possible change in link power, dish size or any combination of these.

Regarding a potential change of satellite provider; That satellite has smaller spot beams (see the fact sheet here) than the existing Optus satellite, which means it takes less transmit power to cover NZ and there is more bandwidth available (it recycles the bands over and over) which potentially means Sky can get a much larger chunk of bandwidth for a lower per MHz cost. There even appears to be separate beams for North and South Islands, which may have a number of interesting implications.

networkn

Networkn
32155 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261390 20-Jun-2019 11:46

I don't really understand satelittes from a technical perspective overly, so I'll have to take what you are saying as gospel, but from what I had read, didn't Sky *already* extend their deal with Optus by 10 years very recently? That would seem to indicate ruling out 1, 2, 3 and 4 as Optus would be under contract and require to be fit for purpose for the length of the contract. It's not Sky's issue if the satelittes need to be replaced.

5 seems feasible. I do wonder why Sky doesn't switch to something like x265 (I am unsure if this is suitable to broadcast) I use this a lot at home and I can't tell any quality difference but the size of the videos are massively decreased. I am not sure if Satelitte is simply a delivery mechanism you can push anything you like over, or if only certain codecs can be used.

PolicyGuy

1702 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2261396 20-Jun-2019 11:54

Interesting.

The new Intelsat Horizons-3e satellite is at 169E, whereas Optus-D1 is at 160E, so NZ antennae would have a slightly better look angle to 3e than to D1, so better signal strength for the same size dish, and possibly allowing a smaller dish in the North Island?

I wonder if they are close enough to allow an existing D1-oriented antenna to work with 3e without any physical adjustments, or whether it would be a house visit for every customer - I think that would be a show stopper for Sky

Spyware

3719 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2261397 20-Jun-2019 11:59

networkn:

5 seems feasible. I do wonder why Sky doesn't switch to something like x265 (I am unsure if this is suitable to broadcast) I use this a lot at home and I can't tell any quality difference but the size of the videos are massively decreased.

One big reason would be that their STBs don't support HEVC/x265. Maybe bin them all.

rugrat

3087 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2261406 20-Jun-2019 12:10

DjShadow:
cyril7:

Lota drama to repoint dishes, and did Sky not just resign a 10yr deal with Optus, seems a bit odd to change RF provider.

Cyril

It would still be one way to stop people getting Sky just to get a dish installed then cancel to use Freeview

Doesn’t Sky use some of the channels transmitted as Freeview on their decoders. I.e Duke.
If they did this they’d have to drop those channels from their decoders or retransmit themselves.

I can tune in through Freeview in city, but the Sky decoder is my main recording device so would lose the ability to record these channels.

I’ll wait and see, find rumours/possibilities interesting in meantime.

DjShadow

4049 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2261410 20-Jun-2019 12:18

PolicyGuy:

Interesting.

The new Intelsat Horizons-3e satellite is at 169E, whereas Optus-D1 is at 160E, so NZ antennae would have a slightly better look angle to 3e than to D1, so better signal strength for the same size dish, and possibly allowing a smaller dish in the North Island?

I wonder if they are close enough to allow an existing D1-oriented antenna to work with 3e without any physical adjustments, or whether it would be a house visit for every customer - I think that would be a show stopper for Sky

I think it'll be a physical adjustment required. As I understand all LNBs supplied by Sky are dual where they aim at Optus D1 at 160E but can pick up Optus C1/D3 at 156E with the 22hz tone.

networkn

Networkn
32155 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261451 20-Jun-2019 12:26

Spyware:

networkn:

5 seems feasible. I do wonder why Sky doesn't switch to something like x265 (I am unsure if this is suitable to broadcast) I use this a lot at home and I can't tell any quality difference but the size of the videos are massively decreased.

One big reason would be that their STBs don't support HEVC/x265. Maybe bin them all.

Not sure I want to think about what happens to them all if they get binned. I presume it's not a matter of a software decoder for x265? x265 has greater compression so potentially a greater hardware requirement not able to be met by this?

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8706 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2261462 20-Jun-2019 12:36

old3eyes:

networkn:

I am wondering what the benefits of a new satellite are? From a personal perspective, I'd hope it added capacity so we could have more, higher resolution channels. Things like History and Food TV, though somewhat interestingly, I don't think I've seen Food TV broadcast in HD on any service here or when staying overseas. I am unsure if that's because they don't record in HD, but even the most basic of recording hardware does at least 720P now.

Food TV is one of those channels where HD content would be a huge advantage.

Along with "SmelloVision" :-)

It already exists - we often have SmelloVision in our place but it's very rarely (or purely coincidental) that the scent aligns with the content on the telly.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

1 | 2 | 3