0

Discussion topic: Potential issues with Sky Q installation

Reply
This message was authored by: RESROC

Potential issues with Sky Q installation

We currently having 3 Sky HD boxes linked with single cables to 3 tvs around our old stone propoerty. The closest to the dish is 10m away and the furthest 40m away. (where we mostly watch tv )

Sky want us to move to Sky Q which involves a new LNB (no problem there) and two cables from the LNB to (I assume) the main Sky Q box . If this is the case, we have an issue, as the  single cable running to the current Sky HD box, (and indeed all 3 boxes around the property ) were discreetly 'buried' 20 years ago. It would be very expensive to expose and replace these cables.

My only thought is to site the main Q box by the TV closest to the dish, where 2 cables can be discreetly sited.

Does that make sense ? (or are there options ?)

 

If so, do we lose any advantages  siting the 'slave' boxes (needing no cables I believe) next to the other 2 TVs , and in particular the one we most watch ? 

Reply

All Replies

This message was authored by: nigea99

Re: Potential issues with Sky Q installation

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@RESROC wrote:

We currently having 3 Sky HD boxes linked with single cables to 3 tvs around our old stone propoerty. The closest to the dish is 10m away and the furthest 40m away. (where we mostly watch tv )

Sky want us to move to Sky Q which involves a new LNB (no problem there) and two cables from the LNB to (I assume) the main Sky Q box . If this is the case, we have an issue, as the  single cable running to the current Sky HD box, (and indeed all 3 boxes around the property ) were discreetly 'buried' 20 years ago. It would be very expensive to expose and replace these cables.

My only thought is to site the main Q box by the TV closest to the dish, where 2 cables can be discreetly sited.

Does that make sense ? (or are there options ?)

 

If so, do we lose any advantages  siting the 'slave' boxes (needing no cables I believe) next to the other 2 TVs , and in particular the one we most watch ? 


hi @RESROC 

 

I think I might need to have a think to reply properly.

 

In the meantime  I think you may wish to read some notes I have made for people considering switching from SKY +/HD to SKY Q

SKY +/HD to SKY Q 

 

Note SKY Q boxes connect to the TVs via HDMI cables (although the minis can be connected via AV connectors using a 3rd party mini plug to RCA/Phono AV cable.) 

 

As per my notes the minis connect to the main box via network - wifi or LAN  - it sounds like your topography might be a challenge - who is your Broadband with and do you have ethenet between locations ? 

This message was authored by: MightyQuinn

Re: Potential issues with Sky Q installation

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

Hi @RESROC   To avoid a world of pain, stick to Sky+HD, or move to Stream if you have fast broadband.

This message was authored by: TimmyBGood

Re: Potential issues with Sky Q installation

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@RESROC wrote:

 

Sky want us to move to Sky Q

 


Note there's currently no requirement to do so: Sky+ HD is almost certainly going to last as long as Q* before being discontinued.

 

*which is approximately the next four years

* * * * * * *

Sky Glass 55" (on ethernet) & two Stream Pucks (one ethernet / one WiFi)
BT Halo 3+ Ultrafast FTTP (500Mbs), BT Smart Hub 2
This message was authored by: Chodley

Re: Potential issues with Sky Q installation

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

Only the main box can do 4k

 

Wifi on Q is flakey. With stone walls it's only likely to be worse. Have you got ethernet run through the house already? This could also affect Stream if you ever try that.

Reply