Sky getting into broadband

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Sky getting into broadband

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2492110 26-May-2020 18:57

Rikkitic:

It is also robust for Freeview. This has nothing to do with Sky.

No HD freeview on satillite and the SD service looks so bad it may as well have come from a 90s hong kong bootleg vcd.

Richard rich.ms

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2492112 26-May-2020 19:00

richms:

No HD freeview on satillite and the SD service looks so bad it may as well have come from a 90s hong kong bootleg vcd.

Looks fine to me. Anyway, we were talking about robustness.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2492113 26-May-2020 19:01

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

BUT, so many that have Sky love the satellite feed. Its robust.

It is also robust for Freeview. This has nothing to do with Sky.

Very true, but Sky has more content than Freeview. 700,000 think thats ok

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2492114 26-May-2020 19:03

You were talking about robustness, not content.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2492116 26-May-2020 19:19

Rikkitic:

Looks fine to me. Anyway, we were talking about robustness.

If it cant deliver the quality then that is a failure in robustness. May as well say dialup is a robust connection.

Richard rich.ms

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2492118 26-May-2020 19:20

Rikkitic:

You were talking about robustness, not content.

I did mention other features and benefits. But that begs the question, if for rural people who cannot access terrestrial, is Sky better than Freeview satellite? From what I see FV is poor via satellite.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2492143 26-May-2020 19:51

tdgeek:

I did mention other features and benefits. But that begs the question, if for rural people who cannot access terrestrial, is Sky better than Freeview satellite? From what I see FV is poor via satellite.

I think that depends on individual expectations. @richms obviously thinks so. I'm sure many agree. I have never personally found it an issue. But the things I like to watch usually are not HD or surround sound anyway.

I think Sky is probably good value for rural people with no other choice. That used to be the case for us. Once you have decent broadband, it is a different matter. I don't think Sky can really compete at the moment with the legal content, paid and free, available overseas. Of course that has to do with individual preferences, but I just took a look at the Sky Basic content, and it seems to be the same as it was when we were subscribers. Unless you pay extra, you get Freeview plus some English filler channels and not much else. If you have broadband, you can do much better for less. Sky still has way to go if they want to compete.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

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.

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2492336 26-May-2020 22:37

richms:

No HD freeview on satillite and the SD service looks so bad it may as well have come from a 90s hong kong bootleg vcd.

I was in Noels in the weekend and the sales person told me the latest Freeview satellite boxes are now HD.

halper86

547 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2492340 26-May-2020 22:47

dafman:
richms:

No HD freeview on satillite and the SD service looks so bad it may as well have come from a 90s hong kong bootleg vcd.

I was in Noels in the weekend and the sales person told me the latest Freeview satellite boxes are now HD.

FV has too make their feed HD first...

joshhill96

1512 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2492740 27-May-2020 13:13

dafman:

richms:

No HD freeview on satillite and the SD service looks so bad it may as well have come from a 90s hong kong bootleg vcd.

I was in Noels in the weekend and the sales person told me the latest Freeview satellite boxes are now HD.

Noel Leeming will need to clear when they promote this, while the latest Freeview Satellite boxes are HD ready, the satellite feeds are not. HD will relate to any 3rd party service such as Lightbox, Netflix and TVNZ ONDEMAND or other services that have HD.

As far as HD on Freeview Satellite, there is no timeline for this.

Formerly worked at iStore NZ (Rest in Peace), Sky Network Television, Freeview, Apple, Spark New Zealand Trading Limited, DISH TV Technologies.

Travel Geek: Brazil, Chile, New Caledonia, United States, Fiji, Vanuatu, Australia, Cook Islands

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2493525 28-May-2020 11:28

At resolutions up to 720P, New Zealand Satellite FTA is a cut above other FTA (and paid) satellite TV services and is considered HD in some parts of the world. It is roughly 4 times the resolution of VCD (352i) and a big step up on analogue TV (576i).

If your satellite box isn't connecting to the screen with HDMI you could be viewing it at only 480i or 576i, which would explain why some people think the quality is decent while others compare it to VCD. Not sure what Sky's SD satellite service resolution is/was, but again if it wasn't using HDMI it could be 480i or 576i, and be less than the best free view satellite has to offer.

It is now mandatory for free view receivers to be be 1080P50, so it looks like they're future proofing.

Free View Specs - Ref section 6.15

Spyware

3762 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2493534 28-May-2020 11:34

The SD satellite transmissions are all 576i. I don't know why people would think they are 720P. Freeview satellite streams are original DVB-S mpeg2 from 2007 - the original decoders support nothing more so they can't be changed. Terrestrial SD channels are also 576i. Most Sky SD streams have been changed to DVB-S2 H.264 which makes them look a bit better but they are still 576i. 720P isn't used at all on any transmission.

I've always thought the quality as it was on Sky's DVB-S mpeg2 was worse than analog. Absolutely vulgar, I even gave my decoder back in 2008 because of the poor quality.

Spark Max Fibre using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+, CRS125-24G-1S, Unifi UAP, U6-Pro, UAP-AC-M-Pro, Apple TV 4K (2022), Apple TV 4K (2017), iPad Air 1st gen, iPad Air 4th gen, iPhone 13, SkyNZ3151 (the white box). If it doesn't move then it's data cabled.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2493599 28-May-2020 12:12

I'm talking about the absurd macroblockking because of the extremely low bitrates used.

Resolutions another issue but using a many decades old mpeg2 codec is half the reason since there are now 2 newer generations in widespread use. They will have to turn that off sometime which will result in the same whining as when analog was turned off.

It needs to go. It's not fit for any screen available now. Sky provide a better more suitable service over sat which despite still being interlaced (another retro throw back) is soooo much better to look at

Richard rich.ms

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2493620 28-May-2020 12:46

richms: I'm talking about the absurd macroblockking because of the extremely low bitrates used.

Resolutions another issue but using a many decades old mpeg2 codec is half the reason since there are now 2 newer generations in widespread use. They will have to turn that off sometime which will result in the same whining as when analog was turned off.

It needs to go. It's not fit for any screen available now. Sky provide a better more suitable service over sat which despite still being interlaced (another retro throw back) is soooo much better to look at

I am not an expert (not even a little bit!) but I just don't see this at all. Some people keep saying this kind of thing but I have to wonder if there isn't an element of technophile purism to it. I have an older 50 inch Sony TV and the picture on that is perfectly fine for ordinary viewing. I don't get macroblocking or fuzzy resolution or anything other than a clear picture whether I view it close up or at a distance. I also have a Blu-ray player. If I compare the picture quality from Blu-ray to DVD to Freeview satellite to Freeview (and other) IPTV, I see very little difference. Blu-ray is definitely sharper and brighter, but not enormously so. We also have DVB-T but again, I don't see a huge difference except with the audio. We used to have the old analogue Pace decoder when we had Sky and that was definitely worse. Even upscaled from s-video it was like watching VHS. But I don't get all this contempt for satellite Freeview. Probably it makes a difference if you blow it up to a 120 inch home theatre screen, but it looks fine on our Sony. Maybe the TV does an exceptional job of upscaling. Maybe I am going blind. But none of our younger guests have ever complained about it either.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sm1ff

122 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#2493623 28-May-2020 12:55

Rikkitic:
richms: I'm talking about the absurd macroblockking because of the extremely low bitrates used.

Resolutions another issue but using a many decades old mpeg2 codec is half the reason since there are now 2 newer generations in widespread use. They will have to turn that off sometime which will result in the same whining as when analog was turned off.

It needs to go. It's not fit for any screen available now. Sky provide a better more suitable service over sat which despite still being interlaced (another retro throw back) is soooo much better to look at

I am not an expert (not even a little bit!) but I just don't see this at all. Some people keep saying this kind of thing but I have to wonder if there isn't an element of technophile purism to it. I have an older 50 inch Sony TV and the picture on that is perfectly fine for ordinary viewing. I don't get macroblocking or fuzzy resolution or anything other than a clear picture whether I view it close up or at a distance. I also have a Blu-ray player. If I compare the picture quality from Blu-ray to DVD to Freeview satellite to Freeview (and other) IPTV, I see very little difference. Blu-ray is definitely sharper and brighter, but not enormously so. We also have DVB-T but again, I don't see a huge difference except with the audio. We used to have the old analogue Pace decoder when we had Sky and that was definitely worse. Even upscaled from s-video it was like watching VHS. But I don't get all this contempt for satellite Freeview. Probably it makes a difference if you blow it up to a 120 inch home theatre screen, but it looks fine on our Sony. Maybe the TV does an exceptional job of upscaling. Maybe I am going blind. But none of our younger guests have ever complained about it either.

The difference between sd and hd is massive. Its night and day. I hate it when people claim to see no difference... its huge!

The difference between hd and uhd is a mixture of results depending on the content and the source material. And whether it from streaming services or poor broadcast bitrates.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7