VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

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



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.

Full of your own self-importance and spewing carp again I see. I do not need to know anything about Italy, I do know more than you about Openreach delivery and BTWholesale supply though.

Of course you can prove me wrong by opening THIS page.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Full of your own self-importance and spewing carp again I see. I do not need to know anything about Italy, I do know more than you about Openreach delivery and BTWholesale supply though.

Of course you can prove me wrong by opening THIS page.

Yet with your massive depth of knowledge, and your Openreach login, you’ve offered nothing to the thread? Interesting.

The reality is the bandwidth required to support a “Sky Q experience” over IP isn’t there. In the UK that’s six simultaneous recordings, a seventh live broadcast and a mobile device. You could prove me wrong though, with your Openreach customer zone login...

[OLD BOY]

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.

Sorry, jfman, but try as I may not to disagree with you, I have to say that you are approaching this from a very extreme and negative angle.

As I would see it, Sky would verify the type of broadband that the customer had prior to installation. The customer would be told about the minimum speeds necessary to support UHD. If problems materialised down the line, and the issue was the internet speeds then the customer would be advised to get a different broadband package, if available.

If, for reasons of cost or availability in the area, nothing could be done about the broadband speed, the customer would be advised that the UHD facility would be cut off, it would now be HD only and a lower price would be charged.

Hence, the customer is helped to make the right decision, a lower price is paid and the system works satisfactorily.

You are very good at identifying problems, jfman, I'll give you that. You need to work a bit on how to solve those problems, though.

[oliver1948uk]

And how many paid man/woman hours is that lot going to take to sort out?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry, jfman, but try as I may not to disagree with you, I have to say that you are approaching this from a very extreme and negative angle.

As I would see it, Sky would verify the type of broadband that the customer had prior to installation. The customer would be told about the minimum speeds necessary to support UHD. If problems materialised down the line, and the issue was the internet speeds then the customer would be advised to get a different broadband package, if available.

If, for reasons of cost or availability in the area, nothing could be done about the broadband speed, the customer would be advised that the UHD facility would be cut off, it would now be HD only and a lower price would be charged.

Hence, the customer is helped to make the right decision, a lower price is paid and the system works satisfactorily.

You are very good at identifying problems, jfman, I'll give you that. You need to work a bit on how to solve those problems, though.

I don't need to work out how to solve the problems - Sky and broadband providers evidently do.

There's no rational reason for Sky not to offer the service if it was as easy as you say. They'd immediately throw the gauntlet down to every DTT, IPTV and cable operator out there, gaining inroads where users don't have line of sight or for some other reason aren't allowed a satellite dish.

Sky aren't putting these things on walls because they make a huge profit margin on the physical dish itself. A customer is a customer whatever the delivery method. That leaves us with one conclusion... And one only.

UHD streams are 25MB/sec on the Eutelsat 13 position. It only takes two of those to choke up your average FTTC connection.

It is neither extreme nor negative to point out observable reality. Sky, with an obligation to their shareholders, should be doing everything in their power to realistically increase their footprint. And rightly so. Yet, there's a stumbling block.

If, and when, FTTP becomes more prevalent then it's the natural next step. However we are some years off in the UK although I can't speak for Italy

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk

And how many paid man/woman hours is that lot going to take to sort out?

To come to the obvious conclusion: give them the satellite version.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk

And how many paid man/woman hours is that lot going to take to sort out?

It's not exactly rocket science, old bean.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's not exactly rocket science, old bean.

Is it? Are Sky going to go out to test every piece of kit during peak internet usage periods to identify if it’s a Wi-fi issue or the ISP? Are they going to take forward the complaint if the ISP isn’t living up to expectation? Is the customer going to walk away during a cooling off period? Or is it going to be a spreadsheet exercise then you are on your own?

How many people are going to be disappointed, or have to pay a price premium to upgrade their broadband when Sky could/should have just gave them a dish?

How many people are going to be disappointed their broadband becomes virtually unusable as the Sky Q hogs the majority of their bandwidth.

It’s a huge reputational risk to try to deliver this and fail. The question remains if it’s that easy why are Sky, with their shareholder obligations, not doing it?

OB, like everyone who has ever called a radio phone-in at 5pm on a Saturday evening to tell the world what their team’s manager *should* have done to get the three points ... you talk a good game.

[jfman]

It’s worth noting “Sky without a dish” https://www.skygroup.sky/corporate/m...ons-more-homes was expected in the UK last year.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's not exactly rocket science, old bean.

Actually, it’s not far from it.

My buddy works as a Network Technical Architect for the Beeb, and he’s part of a very large team - his focus is on Network Architecture, and his comment it’s that none of the major suppliers could support widespread UHD on multiple channels, in the near to medium future.

He’s an expert in this area, so I believe him.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Is it? Are Sky going to go out to test every piece of kit during peak internet usage periods to identify if it’s a Wi-fi issue or the ISP? Are they going to take forward the complaint if the ISP isn’t living up to expectation? Is the customer going to walk away during a cooling off period? Or is it going to be a spreadsheet exercise then you are on your own?

How many people are going to be disappointed, or have to pay a price premium to upgrade their broadband when Sky could/should have just gave them a dish?

How many people are going to be disappointed their broadband becomes virtually unusable as the Sky Q hogs the majority of their bandwidth.

It’s a huge reputational risk to try to deliver this and fail. The question remains if it’s that easy why are Sky, with their shareholder obligations, not doing it?

A thumbs down from you, then! Not unusual.

Well, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, won't it?

---------- Post added at 23:31 ---------- Previous post was at 23:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually, it’s not far from it.

My buddy works as a Network Technical Architect for the Beeb, and he’s part of a very large team - his focus is on Network Architecture, and his comment it’s that none of the major suppliers could support widespread UHD on multiple channels, in the near to medium future.

He’s an expert in this area, so I believe him.

So you think Sky is wrong to have a plan to replace satellite TV with IPTV.

Interesting.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

OB, like everyone who has ever called a radio phone-in at 5pm on a Saturday evening to tell the world what their team’s manager *should* have done to get the three points ... you talk a good game.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

A thumbs down from you, then! Not unusual.

Well, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, won't it?

It’s simply not viable at this stage.

So you think Sky is wrong to have a plan to replace satellite TV with IPTV.

Interesting.

That’s not what he said. He said near to medium term. It’d be reckless of Sky to not have a long term plan that looked at future requirements for the business.

End of life for the Astra 2 satellites for the UK will be nearly 2030.

Eutelsat, who broadcast Sky to Italy, are renewing their fleet at 13 degrees east with two new satellites in 2021, these will have a likely 15 year lifespan. Albeit, that doesn’t mean it will be Sky (Italy) who are using them.

Move to IPTV of some description is inevitable, it just isn’t ready yet and there’s no urgency to deploy. It’s years off replacing satellite broadcasts for Sky. That’s not to say both a satellite and IPTV offering won’t coexist for some time sooner than that. The IPTV version has significant challenges - that’s why it and 1080p Now TV don’t exist in the UK yet.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually, it’s not far from it.

My buddy works as a Network Technical Architect for the Beeb, and he’s part of a very large team - his focus is on Network Architecture, and his comment it’s that none of the major suppliers could support widespread UHD on multiple channels, in the near to medium future.

He’s an expert in this area, so I believe him.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

A thumbs down from you, then! Not unusual.

Well, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, won't it?

---------- Post added at 23:31 ---------- Previous post was at 23:29 ----------



So you think Sky is wrong to have a plan to replace satellite TV with IPTV.

Interesting.

Not what I said...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not what I said...

I know you didn't. I was asking if that's what you thought, that's all.