2029 - changes to Sky ?

[Wibbly-Woo]

@Invisiblename 

No I have never claim to be anything other than a customer.

Where have I said anything like the fact that I am running two TV 's off a single box ?

If you read my posts carefully - you will see that I was just asking how a second TV was linked in to stream.

[Chodley]

You said that you assume that there is some way of doing it with Stream without an extra box, in spite of being aware there is no way of doing it on Q?

That's impressive logic.

[Invisiblename]

---

@Wibbly-Woo wrote:

@Invisiblename 

No I have never claim to be anything other than a customer.

Where have I said anything like the fact that I am running two TV 's off a single box ?

If you read my posts carefully - you will see that I was just asking how a second TV was linked in to stream.

---

[Dobber1234]

Finally, someone that is talking my language nobody else on here seems to agree with me apart from this gentleman

[Chodley]

---

@Dobber1234 wrote:

Finally, someone that is talking my language nobody else on here seems to agree with me apart from this gentleman

---

I'll repeat this again for clarity.

Lots of people here agree with you that satellite delivery is better and that streaming;

1. Gives the broadcasters more control over how we watch and advertising intrusion

2. Depends on decent broadband infrastructure.

What those people, including me, understand though and you seem to refuse to either understand or accept, is that even if Sky wanted to continue satellite delivery into the 2030s (and number 1 above is one reason they don't), they simply cannot afford to invest in getting new satellites launched to replace those which will fail, the capital investment needed is huge even with the efficiences SpaceX have achieved.

[Wibbly-Woo]

@Chodley 

So when Sky is broadcast purely on-line - we can expect a greatly reduced subscription cost ?

[Daniel0210]

---

@Wibbly-Woo wrote:

@Chodley 

So when Sky is broadcast purely on-line - we can expect a greatly reduced subscription cost ?

---

@Wibbly-Woo 

Why would you expect that? Wishful thinking there.

[grumpyderek]

alot can happen between now & 2029 fingers crossed.

[GD1]

---

@Chodley wrote:

---

@Dobber1234 wrote:

Finally, someone that is talking my language nobody else on here seems to agree with me apart from this gentleman

---

I'll repeat this again for clarity.

Lots of people here agree with you that satellite delivery is better and that streaming;

1. Gives the broadcasters more control over how we watch and advertising intrusion

2. Depends on decent broadband infrastructure.

What those people, including me, understand though and you seem to refuse to either understand or accept, is that even if Sky wanted to continue satellite delivery into the 2030s (and number 1 above is one reason they don't), they simply cannot afford to invest in getting new satellites launched to replace those which will fail, the capital investment needed is huge even with the efficiences SpaceX have achieved.

---

And to clarify  it wouldn't be Sky who would invest in New satellites but the owners SES in Luxembourg, however given the small market share it's unlikely they will as they would have announced by now any new birds for this location given the time it takes to build & launch a satellite (at least 2 would be needed).

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Wibbly-Woo wrote:

So when Sky is broadcast purely on-line - we can expect a greatly reduced subscription cost ?

---

No: Comcast Corporation stockholders would rather like their Sky Group division to one day return a profit on the extremely large sum it cost to acquire.

Channels will achieve a small (in percentage terms) operational cost reduction through no longer paying for satellite data transit, but remember the vast majority of the channels on the satellite platform aren't owned by Sky anyway.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@grumpyderek wrote:

alot can happen between now & 2029

---

Certainly, but communication satellite specification, financing, design and construction and then heavy lifter launch slots to actually get them into orbit (if all goes well) have to be booked several years in advance.

Astra 1P was publicly announced in November 2021 and launched in June 2024.

[Chodley]

---

@grumpyderek wrote:

alot can happen between now & 2029 fingers crossed.

---

"A lot". It's two words

and zero chance

[Chodley]

---

@GD1 wrote:

---

@Chodley wrote:

---

@Dobber1234 wrote:

Finally, someone that is talking my language nobody else on here seems to agree with me apart from this gentleman

---

I'll repeat this again for clarity.

Lots of people here agree with you that satellite delivery is better and that streaming;

1. Gives the broadcasters more control over how we watch and advertising intrusion

2. Depends on decent broadband infrastructure.

What those people, including me, understand though and you seem to refuse to either understand or accept, is that even if Sky wanted to continue satellite delivery into the 2030s (and number 1 above is one reason they don't), they simply cannot afford to invest in getting new satellites launched to replace those which will fail, the capital investment needed is huge even with the efficiences SpaceX have achieved.

---

And to clarify  it wouldn't be Sky who would invest in New satellites but the owners SES in Luxembourg, however given the small market share it's unlikely they will as they would have announced by now any new birds for this location given the time it takes to build & launch a satellite (at least 2 would be needed).

---

Yeah. Indeed. I meant sky paying them to make it happen

[Wibbly-Woo]

I understand that Sky is moving away from "ability to record" to "pure stream" - via Internet rather than Satellite ..

I am not looking forwards to losing my ability to record - having had Sky for 23 years 

So when this happens - it doesn't seem to be any point in buying my own hard disk recorder - because I need several channels

Which leads me to my question - is Sky planning a new device to record a signal from internet - preferably several channel at the same time ?

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Wibbly-Woo wrote:

Which leads me to my question - is Sky planning a new device to record a signal from internet - preferably several channel at the same time ?

---

Given they (or rather Comcast) chose to develop Glass and Stream without any local storage at all, the available evidence would suggest not.  It's probably worth remembering that historically 'recording' broadcast television is something of an aberration, not an absolute right, because it deprived the content creators of control: internet content distribution is an entirely different paradigm