On demand download failure Sky+ on 2 boxes

[MogwaiSatTV]

I have just done the test and I can see that BBC stuff is hosted on the Akami Content Delivery Network. For the sky stuff that fails I get destination host unreachable for 2 ip address that when I do an nslookup resolve back to sky rather than one of the CDN's.

[pkjp]

This should be relatively simple stuff to sort and should easily have been picked up by Sky when the issue was first raised. If this issue is too much for the Sky devs/support to sort out (and by the amount of time taken so far it's either that or they're not really particularly trying) then it's time to bin Sky off. There's plenty of other options out there nowadays.

[Annie+UK]

---

@pkjp wrote:

This should be relatively simple stuff to sort and should easily have been picked up by Sky when the issue was first raised. If this issue is too much for the Sky devs/support to sort out (and by the amount of time taken so far it's either that or they're not really particularly trying) then it's time to bin Sky off. There's plenty of other options out there nowadays.

---

Obviously it is not that easy

[oj01]

---

@pkjp wrote:

This should be relatively simple stuff to sort and should easily have been picked up by Sky when the issue was first raised. If this issue is too much for the Sky devs/support to sort out (and by the amount of time taken so far it's either that or they're not really particularly trying) then it's time to bin Sky off. There's plenty of other options out there nowadays.

---

@pkjp As Annie says, it's clearly not a simple issue to sort. Not least because it's only affecting a small percentage of users. 

[pkjp]

Sorry, I don't necessarily agree that this is a complicated fix. This is functionality that has been working fine on Sky+HD boxes for many years. @MogwaiSatTV has already shown that the working BBC and ITV downloads point to different, resolvable and connectable IP addresses whereas the other channels point to Sky servers that are now unreachable (but obviously previously did work). Nor do we know exactly how many users this issue has affected (some users may not have noticed, some may not care, some may have contacted support and been pushed to Sky Q / Sky Stream / Now as a solution, etc.).

[MogwaiSatTV]

On further testing it seems the Channel 4 stuff is also hosted on Sky's servers rather than on the Akami CDN.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@pkjp wrote:

Nor do we know exactly how many users this issue has affected

---

We can estimate Sky+ / Sky+ HD still has a couple of million subscriptions: Q was somewhere between 70% and 80% of the installed base last time Sky published such figures.

However, the number of unique posters to this thread is really very small which does tend to suggest the issue is affecting a tiny percentage of users, possibly skewed by the fact that far more Sky+ boxes have never gone online than with Sky Q (which is inherently a hybrid platform).

There's also a potential demographic factor where those interested in online content are more likely to have moved to Q anyway.

[Steve0001]

@MogwaiSatTVmy post on page 12 of this thread may give you some further channels to test. Thank you for your efforts!

A partial quote from page 12 (16th Feb):

If it helps Sky in any way, I can add the following observations:

A quick, one-off programme check indicates that the following catch-up channels fail (as per ‘i’ button: ‘Failed Rec: Item unavailable’): Channel 5, Peacock, Paramount+, Channel 4, NatGeo, CBS Reality, Nickelodeon, Nicktoons, Nick Jr, Alibi, Gold, Yesterday, ComedyCentral, Discovery, MTV, TLC, Quest, HorrorXtra, Crime+Inv, Blaze and all Sky catch-up/cinema.

These channels work for catch-up: BBC, ITV, Eurosport, Sony Asiaworks, BT sport, Utsav Plus, Colors, Zee TV, Boomerang, BSL Zone, Cartoon Network.

These channels gave no programmes to download (just blank blue screen E!, Pick, Challenge.

Note: I did have a couple of failed downloads that said ‘Subscription needed’ (on ITV3, ITV4 and Cartoon network). I retried the same programmes and they then worked. Temporary glitches maybe.

I guess only Sky would be able to look at the channel groupings above and see a pattern that may indicate content/advert/server/legal/tech issues, as some others have alluded to (@MogwaiSatTV, @thegfb etc).

(end quote)

[PocketDog]

I think it's somewhat naive to surmise that because it's taking a long time to fix, therefore it must be complicated. No one here has any knowledge at all as the the actual efforts going in to looking in to this issue, other than a few of us being asked by Sky what IPs out boxes are pointing to. Other than that, nothing whatsoever from anyone official from Sky. 

The fact that we know the date this started shows that Sky would then be able to trace what system changes were made to cause this issue.  No large organisation makes customer facing changes without knowing exactly what they are doing, not only if for audit purposes. 

It would therefore make sense that such changes could be amended or as a last resort, backed out, to resume normal services for those affected. 

I can only conclude Sky are not putting much effort in to resolving this. If this kind of issue happened where I work and had this lack of resolution or any type of recompense for those affected, heads would roll.  It feels like a combination of incompetence and indifference.

[Annie+UK]

---

@PocketDog wrote:

I think it's somewhat naive to surmise that because it's taking a long time to fix, therefore it must be complicated. No one here has any knowledge at all as the the actual efforts going in to looking in to this issue, other than a few of us being asked by Sky what IPs out boxes are pointing to. Other than that, nothing whatsoever from anyone official from Sky. 

The fact that we know the date this started shows that Sky would then be able to trace what system changes were made to cause this issue.  No large organisation makes customer facing changes without knowing exactly what they are doing, not only if for audit purposes. 

It would therefore make sense that such changes could be amended or as a last resort, backed out, to resume normal services for those affected. 

I can only conclude Sky are not putting much effort in to resolving this. If this kind of issue happened where I work and had this lack of resolution or any type of recompense for those affected, heads would roll.  It feels like a combination of incompetence and indifference.

---

You are making a large assumption that the issue is in sky's network or a system under their control and not a 3rd parties

[Mark39]

@PocketDog no, we don't know. And realistically, if this fault affects a small number of customers from a small population (relative to other non-legacy platforms) of Sky+HD boxes, it may not be considered high priority, especially when there's an alternative solution for most of those affected. 

[PocketDog]

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

You are making a large assumption that the issue is in sky's network or a system under their control and not a 3rd parties

---

If you are trying to tell me that a service ultimately provided by Sky, would not be under their control (3rd parties involved or not) then I'm not buying it, it doesn't work like that.

I guarantee that if this affected ALL Sky user's, they would be going to all departments, Network, Telecoms, Software, 3rd party providers, everyone, to find the issue and it would be resolved in a day or two max.

The fact it's a relatively small number of people affected probably means it's not getting much attention. 

Saying it could be 3rd party does not absolve them of their obligations of providing the services they say they will. 

Like I said, it feels like it's either incompetence, indifference, or both.  It wouldn't take much for them to email those that have complained with some kind of update information? After 10 weeks we've had nothing. 

[Annie+UK]

---

@PocketDog wrote:

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

You are making a large assumption that the issue is in sky's network or a system under their control and not a 3rd parties

---

If you are trying to tell me that a service ultimately provided by Sky, would not be under their control (3rd parties involved or not) then I'm not buying it, it doesn't work like that.

I guarantee that if this affected ALL Sky user's, they would be going to all departments, Network, Telecoms, Software, 3rd party providers, everyone, to find the issue and it would be resolved in a day or two max.

The fact it's a relatively small number of people affected probably means it's not getting much attention. 

Saying it could be 3rd party does not absolve them of their obligations of providing the services they say they will. 

Like I said, it feels like it's either incompetence, indifference, or both.  It wouldn't take much for them to email those that have complained with some kind of update information? After 10 weeks we've had nothing. 

---

This is an issue downloading from the Internet, did you know the Internet is a huge thing not run by one individual company, there are many points of failure that are outside of Sky's control

[TimmyBGood]

---

@PocketDog wrote:

---

---

If you are trying to tell me that a service ultimately provided by Sky, would not be under their control (3rd parties involved or not) then I'm not buying it, it doesn't work like that.

With respect, DNS resolution (which is a major suspect here) absolutely works like that...

[Steve0001]

The problem I have with some of the responses on this thread is that they come from accounts labelled 'Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee'. To be clear, a lot of their responses are helpful and this is not me having a go at them as they are clearly trying to help. However, the 'find out more' link indicates that the superusers have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to become 'superusers'.

https://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Superusers/bd-p/meetthesuperusers

That is normally something reserved for employees or possibly individuals that aspire to be employees. It means that the Superusers can be prosecuted if they break the NDA terms. Why would non-Sky employee forum helpers have access to NDA material that would require them to sign NDA agreements?

@Chloe-W22can't you give us some proper feedback? There are clearly tech savvy people on this thread that are trying to work things out and they deserve a response from Sky tech.

I don't need the SkyQ nudge. Please be honest about the Sky+ service. If you want to turn it off then let us all know and give us deadlines.