Is sky Q and sky boxes in general eventually going to be obsolete?

[stereohaven]

---

@DeckF1 wrote:

Hey all!

I have an idea. How about everyone stop replying to Dobber1234? I happened upon this thread, while searching for something else, and the old 'Dreams/Reality" gif comes to mind when I read their posts. They're not going to accept the reality of how satellite TV will cease to exist by 2029/30, no matter how often you tell them. That's obvious. Leave them to rant and rave to themselves in an empty room.

---

I don't want to comment on the pointless circularity of this thread either, but couldn't resist congratulating you on getting away with that user name for this long. 👍

1 post in 6 years really kept it under the radar, but obviously that will have to go! 🤣

[SKY1992bf]

---

@stereohaven wrote:

---

@DeckF1 wrote:

Hey all!

I have an idea. How about everyone stop replying to Dobber1234? I happened upon this thread, while searching for something else, and the old 'Dreams/Reality" gif comes to mind when I read their posts. They're not going to accept the reality of how satellite TV will cease to exist by 2029/30, no matter how often you tell them. That's obvious. Leave them to rant and rave to themselves in an empty room.

---

I don't want to comment on the pointless circularity of this thread either, but couldn't resist congratulating you on getting away with that user name for this long. 👍

1 post in 6 years really kept it under the radar, but obviously that will have to go! 🤣

---

@stereohaven good spot, been flagged 

[GardenZen]

It would not cost that much, exaggerating doesn't add anything to the conversation. A fraction of a billion to launch a satellite. Maybe 80 mil (and yes I know a few are needed).

But consider gross revenues for Sky Q alone are about 4-5 BILLION every single year! And yes I know they have expenses, but still. Puts a complexion on it. 

[Removed] I wonder could they strip away eg the many +1 channels, and reduce the cost of extending? Even just to retain the OAP market, elderly customers (think Victor Meldrew) who will just migrate to Freeview and hook it up to a recorder box. You can laugh but that is a valuable, sizeable market, and the internet is not for everyone. I know many people around the 70 yo mark who have zero internet and barely know what it is. 

Moderator notes: Removed campaigning

[TimmyBGood]

@GardenZen 

As I've remarked before on this topic, the Comcast Corporation is historically a cable television company and it appears doesn't particularly want to be in the satellite television business.

If they acquired Sky Group primarily for the brand name then from their point of view the delivery mechanism is a secondary consideration: a US company won't even remember how groundbreaking the arrival of satellite television was.

With Germany, Austria and Switzerland being divested and Italy already having Q over IP, satellite broadcast to UK & ROI becomes very much a rump technology even before the last of the fuel gets burnt.

[GardenZen]

Profit is king.

Why not have stream and satellite if overall profits are improved and the decision makers therefore get a higher bonus and pension?

There are a million 'experts' on the internet who 'know' what comes next?

my position is to keep an open mind. There  may be a profitable way to extend Sky Q. Even if not fully fashionable or predictable. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

Why not have stream and satellite if overall profits are improved and the decision makers therefore get a higher bonus and pension?

---

New satellite hardware requires multi-decade commitment to a 1990s technology: that's just silly if enough customers have an alternative.

In 2025 making long-term plans for broadcast television is something like investing in canals, narrowboats and horses while watching a steam train chug by.

[GardenZen]

...and yet other European countries are to entend and retain various satellite broadcasts...

Apparently it's not as simplistic as some would make out.

[TimmyBGood]

@GardenZen 

SES have chosen to replace one broadcast satellite over mainland Europe which serves ten times as many households as the UK/RoI cluster: unfortunately that's how geography works.  

[GardenZen]

Astra 1P and Astra 1Q: ordered by SES, these are the third-generation replacements for the current satellites at 19.2° East, ensuring premium TV services for major European markets.

To Avoid its customer base eroding Sky can invest in its satellite technology. Otherwise millions will be lost as a large number of customers will move to digital terrestrial and buy recorder boxes. If you want specific Sky channels, Now TV would be a cheap effective way to supplement your own setup (but there are better streaming services imo). If Sky decides not to offer hybrid, they will simply make less money, and have less to invest in their offering. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

Astra 1P and Astra 1Q: ordered by SES, these are the third-generation replacements for the current satellites at 19.2° East, ensuring premium TV services for major European markets.

Yes, one broadcast and one hybrid (internet access) platform, to serve a hugely bigger market.

To Avoid its customer base eroding Sky can invest in its satellite technology. Otherwise millions will be lost as a large number of customers will move to digital terrestrial and buy recorder boxes. 

Digital terrestrial could cease a few years into the next decade (renewal is in 2034) : it's really expensive to maintain and provides poor quality reception in many areas with zero capacity for UHD content.

Weirdly it might actually have made more sense to commission a satellite specifically for free to air television, but now there's the Freely app....

---

[TimmyBGood]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

If Sky decides not to offer hybrid, they will simply make less money, and have less to invest in their offering. 

---

A company can choose to reduce an individual revenue source, particularly if this generates savings (no satellite data transit cost, no small army of satellite dish installers) and it's making money elsewhere (streaming, internet, mobile and content creation).  They'll also be calculating that their long-term rights to PL and F1 will bring those users over to streaming in any case.

Again, this isn't 'Sky' the British satellite television pioneer any more, it's Comcast the cable, ISP, theme park and movies giant whose Sky Group division is a smaller overseas entity.

[GardenZen]

The customer is king. Paying customers will not migrate to (what many Q customers consider) an inferior product (stream) if there are good alternatives. Digital terrestrial provides excellent reception to millions and includes the most watched channels. No 4K, but very few care about that. I do, but I recognise many simply couldn't care less. 

If just one of your neighbours uses digital terrestrial it's a simple matter to ask if it works or not and then get it for yourself. There are some excellent recording boxes on the market. 

Also, no more expensive Sky subscriptions. 

Each customer will make their own decision. As for predicting what happens a DECADE from now? Good luck with that! You might not even be alive to see it. 

[TimmyBGood]

@GardenZen 

Comcast doesn't need Sky satellite subscription money if it thinks the overall Group can be sustainable on streaming income plus its multiple other revenue sources: that's a legitimate decision to remove the need to retain an antique technology.

Whether the customer benefits is different, but unless UK government steps in to protect PSB access it's literally out of our hands.

[Daniel0210]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

Each customer will make their own decision. 

---

Here endeth the lesson. The thread can now be locked. 

[Chodley]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

The customer is king. Paying customers will not migrate to (what many Q customers consider) an inferior product (stream) if there are good alternatives. Digital terrestrial provides excellent reception to millions and includes the most watched channels. No 4K, but very few care about that. I do, but I recognise many simply couldn't care less. 

If just one of your neighbours uses digital terrestrial it's a simple matter to ask if it works or not and then get it for yourself. There are some excellent recording boxes on the market. 

Also, no more expensive Sky subscriptions. 

Each customer will make their own decision. As for predicting what happens a DECADE from now? Good luck with that! You might not even be alive to see it. 

---

Freeview is living proof you get what you pay for.