VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This looks like a sneek preview of Sky's new IPTV service that will be coming to the UK soon. Typically, Sky is not offering the best picture quality, presumably to deter satellite customers from leaving. Not exactly customer friendly, are they?

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2019...re-only-sky-q/

Isn't BT the only live IPTV service in the UK to offer UHD and that's because it uses its own multicast network to deliver it meaning you must have BT internet and be able to receive a certain speed. Sky may intend to deliver it to customers no matter who's your ISP.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Isn't BT the only live IPTV service to offer UHD and that's because it uses its own multicast network to deliver it meaning you must have BT internet and be able to receive a certain speed. Sky may intend to deliver it to customers no matter who's your ISP.

I'm sure i read somewhere BT are thinking about rolling it's tv service out to all isps.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Sky may intend to deliver it to customers no matter who's your ISP.

www.sky.it lists 5 ISPs that are currently approved. There's also a link for other ISPs to apply for approval, but it includes a list of requirements including a minimum of 2 x 10Gbps links direct to Sky's campus in Milan to be installed at the operator's expense.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed they’re saying 15 meg to support three streams plus a tablet. Throw in Ultra HD at 25 meg and suddenly the number of people having not having fast enough internet increases significantly.

If Sky could reliably offer the product they would, it’s not nothing to do with being “not exactly customer friendly” more that the underlying infrastructure isn’t there to guarantee reliably offering a premium product.

As Spiderplant says, there’s no incentive for a satellite customer to move to the IP based product anyway. Why would they want to sacrifice internet bandwidth for an identical service?

In the longer term, Sky is planning on moving its pay-TV customers away from satellite in favour of IPTV. This is why it seems odd that they are not offering UHD, unless for accounting purposes Sky doesn't want customers to move just yet, thus attracting mainly new customers to IPTV at this stage.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Even if it did support UHD, there wouldn't be any incentive for satellite customers to leave (I assume the pricing is similar). More likely Sky don't want the support problems caused by broadband outside their control not being fast enough for UHD.

That is easily overcome by ensuring that only customers with a specified broadband connection are accepted to take UHD. Isn't that what Virgin do now for customers with a V6?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

In the longer term, Sky is planning on moving its pay-TV customers away from satellite in favour of IPTV. This is why it seems odd that they are not offering UHD, unless for accounting purposes Sky doesn't want customers to move just yet, thus attracting mainly new customers to IPTV at this stage.

It's more likely to be a support issue with users accessing the service over different ISP's they can't guarantee the service the same as say BT who deliver its live UHD over its own multicast service.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

In the longer term, Sky is planning on moving its pay-TV customers away from satellite in favour of IPTV. This is why it seems odd that they are not offering UHD, unless for accounting purposes Sky doesn't want customers to move just yet, thus attracting mainly new customers to IPTV at this stage.[COLOR="Silver"]

A Sky customer is a Sky customer, regardless of delivery method. In the longer term Sky will have plans, but whether Italian broadband infrastructure is up to it today is unknown.

There’s no rational reason for Sky not to offer UHD if the infrastructure is up to it. The reality is that it’s not, and they don’t want the reputational risk that will go along with deploying an untested product.

That is easily overcome by ensuring that only customers with a specified broadband connection are accepted to take UHD. Isn't that what Virgin do now for customers with a V6?

100 meg? Yeah they could do that, and see how many potential customers they rule out in the process.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

A Sky customer is a Sky customer, regardless of delivery method. In the longer term Sky will have plans, but whether Italian broadband infrastructure is up to it today is unknown.

There’s no rational reason for Sky not to offer UHD if the infrastructure is up to it. The reality is that it’s not, and they don’t want the reputational risk that will go along with deploying an untested product.



100 meg? Yeah they could do that, and see how many potential customers they rule out in the process.

The customers with less would simply be told that they would only be able to access HD. They don't have to miss out on the service altogether.

I am sure that you may have a point on Italian broadband not being ready yet, which could explain matters.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The customers with less would simply be told that they would only be able to access HD. They don't have to miss out on the service altogether.

I am sure that you may have a point on Italian broadband not being ready yet, which could explain matters.

A customer who buys an advertised product, with UHD, who hooks it up and finds their ISP isn’t offering consistently high enough speeds isn’t going to be happy at effectively being missold a product. They might cancel, then Sky have associated costs to set it up and no customer through no fault of their own.

If Sky have aspirations to launch two or three UHD channels then again that’s more pressure if people are wanting to record multiple streams.

It’s easier to just admit it’s a second tier product from outset and wait for internet infrastructure to catch up. I’d be interested to know if the hardware is UHD capable. By getting hardware out there they could run real world trials.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

A customer who buys an advertised product, with UHD, who hooks it up and finds their ISP isn’t offering consistently high enough speeds isn’t going to be happy at effectively being missold a product. They might cancel, then Sky have associated costs to set it up and no customer through no fault of their own.

If Sky have aspirations to launch two or three UHD channels then again that’s more pressure if people are wanting to record multiple streams.

It’s easier to just admit it’s a second tier product from outset and wait for internet infrastructure to catch up. I’d be interested to know if the hardware is UHD capable. By getting hardware out there they could run real world trials.

How could they be missold a product when they were told the minimum requirement? Yet again you are being argumentative just for the sake of it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

A customer who buys an advertised product, with UHD, who hooks it up and finds their ISP isn’t offering consistently high enough speeds isn’t going to be happy at effectively being missold a product. They might cancel, then Sky have associated costs to set it up and no customer through no fault of their own.

If Sky have aspirations to launch two or three UHD channels then again that’s more pressure if people are wanting to record multiple streams.

It’s easier to just admit it’s a second tier product from outset and wait for internet infrastructure to catch up. I’d be interested to know if the hardware is UHD capable. By getting hardware out there they could run real world trials.

I think I made clear that the decision to provide UHD viewing would be made by Sky in the same way that Virgin do for their V6 boxes. It would not be Sky's product that was inadequate, it would be the broadband connection, and that would be made clear at the start of the contract.

So the new customer with poor broadband speed would not lose out on the service whereas the UHD availability might attract many new customers with good broadband who were not allowed a satellite dish, etc, or who wanted to transfer from VM, BT or Talk Talk but did not want a dish.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

How could they be missold a product when they were told the minimum requirement? Yet again you are being argumentative just for the sake of it.

Nobody has ever complained that their internet provider isn’t offering advertised speeds? Nobody has ever complained it drops at peak times? Weekends?

“I pay for 76 meg I assumed that was what I got, turns out it’s only 30?”.

Add in the variable wireless performance of different ISP routers in the market and it’s simply something that Sky, or any reputable company, wouldn’t want to touch with a barge pole with their flagship premium product.

You are kidding yourself on if you think otherwise. Old Boy even agrees with me on this.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think I made clear that the decision to provide UHD viewing would be made by Sky in the same way that Virgin do for their V6 boxes. It would not be Sky's product that was inadequate, it would be the broadband connection, and that would be made clear at the start of the contract.

So the new customer with poor broadband speed would not lose out on the service whereas the UHD availability might attract many new customers with good broadband who were not allowed a satellite dish, etc, or who wanted to transfer from VM, BT or Talk Talk but did not want a dish.

So what information do Sky rely on? Speed checkers? Actual testing of the equipment on site at installation? And if it drops at peak time? Does the ISP have an obligation to investigate? Openreach? How much time/money/effort goes in before a customer just sends it back (and goes to Virgin, BT or someone who does offer UHD over their own infrastructure).

Virgin can do this for the V6 because it’s Virgin’s broadband product on Virgin’s infrastructure. The DOCSIS network is more than capable.

I have no doubt that Sky will move to IP based delivery in Italy, the UK and everywhere else but there’s many questions to be overcome between now and then. The closure of the Now TV 1080p trial here doesn’t fill me with optimism at present.

Interestingly the UK Government has watered down it’s fibre commitment.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...nd-target.html

Full fibre is now “gigabit capable”.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nobody has ever complained that their internet provider isn’t offering advertised speeds? Nobody has ever complained it drops at peak times? Weekends?

“I pay for 76 meg I assumed that was what I got, turns out it’s only 30?”.

Add in the variable wireless performance of different ISP routers in the market and it’s simply something that Sky, or any reputable company, wouldn’t want to touch with a barge pole with their flagship premium product.

You are kidding yourself on if you think otherwise. Old Boy even agrees with me on this.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------



So what information do Sky rely on? Speed checkers? Actual testing of the equipment on site at installation? And if it drops at peak time? Does the ISP have an obligation to investigate? Openreach? How much time/money/effort goes in before a customer just sends it back (and goes to Virgin, BT or someone who does offer UHD over their own infrastructure).

Virgin can do this for the V6 because it’s Virgin’s broadband product on Virgin’s infrastructure. The DOCSIS network is more than capable.

I have no doubt that Sky will move to IP based delivery in Italy, the UK and everywhere else but there’s many questions to be overcome between now and then. The closure of the Now TV 1080p trial here doesn’t fill me with optimism at present.

Interestingly the UK Government has watered down it’s fibre commitment.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...nd-target.html

Full fibre is now “gigabit capable”.

What has that got to do with Sky mis-selling a product? Absolutely nothing!

Certainly on Openreach's VDSL offering via BTWholesale instances of peaktime loss of speed have been vastly reduced.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

What has that got to do with Sky mis-selling a product? Absolutely nothing!

Certainly on Openreach's VDSL offering via BTWholesale instances of peaktime loss of speed have been vastly reduced.

The end user won’t care for the distinction. It’s Sky selling a product and not delivering.

Why do you think Sky in Italy won’t be offering UHD on the IP product at launch? Irrational fear of IP? You accuse me of being argumentative but even when Old Boy and I broadly agree you come along to argue the toss over nothing.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

The end user won’t care for the distinction. It’s Sky selling a product and not delivering.

Why do you think Sky in Italy won’t be offering UHD on the IP product at launch? Irrational fear of IP? You accuse me of being argumentative but even when Old Boy and I broadly agree you come along to argue the toss over nothing.

You will find that those customers will care when they find out they are tied into contract because they have not been mis-sold a product.

It has noything to do with what Sky is offering in Italy and everything to do with what they decide to offer in the UK.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

You will find that those customers will care when they find out they are tied into contract because they have not been mis-sold a product.

And they’ll be angry at Sky! Hence the reputational risk I’ve outlined.

It has noything to do with what Sky is offering in Italy and everything to do with what they decide to offer in the UK.

How does internet technology differ in Italy vs the UK? The same principles and challenges exist everywhere. You can’t offer an answer because you know I’m right on this. Stick to the Brexit thread, you’ve nothing insightful to offer this one.