Is satellite TV dying?

[ZyloKai]

With Sky removing 1,000 staff with the majority being engineers, is this the slow death of satellite TV in the UK & Ireland? Sky has a contract with SES Astra (satellite(s) orbiting Earth owner) until 2028 and are making it difficult to get a Sky Q subscription for new customers.

Also, with channels closing, such as Channel 4's music channels and potentially more Channel 4 channels and Tiny Pop becoming an online-only channel, is linear TV on a slow death as well? Maybe excluding news channels.

I don't think linear TV does enough to try and get younger people to watch it. The majority of programmes seemingly are geared towards older generations who don't understand or want to understand streaming, on-demand, etc. The majority or programmes on live TV are seemingly are crime dramas, classic TV shows (e.g. Heartbeat, MacGyver, Friends, etc), news bullitins, which are available on other usually free platforms.

Of course, Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings seemingly have more varied programming. 

[Annie+UK]

Of course it is going to die, I have not watched scheduled TV for years, I want to watch what I want when I want where I want and not be tied to someone else dictating a schedule

BTW I'm nearly 60 yo

[TimmyBGood]

@ZyloKai 

The end of the era of satellite television broadcast (which is inevitable if the orbiting platforms are not replaced) is not the same thing as the end of linear television distribution.  Virgin Media and its predecessors have been pushing linear TV scheduling through terrestrial cables for more than two decades.

[Annie+UK]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

@ZyloKai 

The end of the era of satellite television broadcast (which is inevitable if the orbiting platforms are not replaced) is not the same thing as the end of linear television distribution.  Virgin Media and its predecessors have been pushing linear TV scheduling through terrestrial cables for more than two decades.

---

People are not wanting to go by a schedule so it's only a matter of time before all scheduled TV dies it's just that satellite will die first

People like to binge watch stuff rather that wait unil 9pm every Tuesday to watch something (for example)

[Mr+Ripley]

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

@ZyloKai 

The end of the era of satellite television broadcast (which is inevitable if the orbiting platforms are not replaced) is not the same thing as the end of linear television distribution.  Virgin Media and its predecessors have been pushing linear TV scheduling through terrestrial cables for more than two decades.

---

People are not wanting to go by a schedule so it's only a matter of time before all scheduled TV dies it's just that satellite will die first

People like to binge watch stuff rather that wait unil 9pm every Tuesday to watch something (for example)

---

  Re: The underlined sentence above. Streaming platforms have been changing the way they supply us with their shows in the last year or so. Whereas at first, it was possible to binge an entire season, now it is more likely that the episodes of a season will be dropped on a weekly basis. So that means either waiting a couple of months for the entire season to drop or watching weekly, which if I'm not mistaken, is how we've all been watching TV for a very long time. I'm not saying it isn't possible to binge a whole season in a matter of days, but the concept of binge-watching for new or returning shows has changed.

[nigea99]

@ZyloKai 

Whilst the viewing habits & transmission mode do have some bearing on each other there are other factors. 

In terms of your title for this discussion the reality is - yes Satellite TV is dying - it is a very expensive method of TV distribution which is being superseded by internet based transmission.

Whilst I believe European TV distributors have stumped enough to pay for a more recent Satellite to be launched to extend life for the slots used by them, I can't see any UK based company paying to extend the life of the 28.2 slot of satellites after the existing ones  run out of fuel..

Even though there is an extension for the European birds distribution for them will , I think, inevitably move to internet based transmission - even if it may take longer to achieve. 

 Whilst I watch a lot of linear TV - I think it is also inevitable that this will change so that only some programming is seen in specific slots . Of course Sport will remain live and I think there will be 'timed releases' of key shows  to generate interest but ultimately Linear TV will go. 

Personally I am surprised by the number of SKY Cinema Channels still broadcasting in a linear fashion

Being an avid viewer of Satellite TV since before DTH Satellite TV became available  (& even subscribed to BSB when it launched!) and growing up seeing BB2, CH4 & CH5 launch I may take longer than some to adjust & in many ways sad to see the changes, I realise that things move on 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

---

---

People are not wanting to go by a schedule so it's only a matter of time before all scheduled TV dies it's just that satellite will die first

---

Some people, certainly, but even if that's a significant percentage it would be a brave channel to cease entirely, and a very bold government to permit PSBs to do so.  'Scheduled TV' is still a thing for millions of households.

[d2h]

---

@nigea99 wrote:

@ZyloKai 

In terms of your title for this discussion the reality is - yes Satellite TV is dying - it is a very expensive method of TV distribution which is being superseded by internet based transmission.

---

IP delivered services are only cost effective for as long as few people watch. The nature of IP delivery means that the fees increase exponentially with an increasing number of viewers/subscribers.

For arguments sake, a satellite broadcaster with no viewers will pay the same amount as a satellite broadcaster with 10m viewers. An IP delivered broadcaster with no viewers will pay much less than an IP delivered broadcaster with 10m viewers due to the increased CDN costs. For some broadcasters, IP costs will eventually exceed what they pay for satellite delivery due to their popularity.

[ZyloKai]

---

@d2h wrote:

---

@nigea99 wrote:

@ZyloKai 

In terms of your title for this discussion the reality is - yes Satellite TV is dying - it is a very expensive method of TV distribution which is being superseded by internet based transmission.

---

IP delivered services are only cost effective for as long as few people watch. The nature of IP delivery means that the fees increase exponentially with an increasing number of viewers/subscribers.

For arguments sake, a satellite broadcaster with no viewers will pay the same amount as a satellite broadcaster with 10m viewers. An IP delivered broadcaster with no viewers will pay much less than an IP delivered broadcaster with 10m viewers due to the increased CDN costs. For some broadcasters, IP costs will eventually exceed what they pay for satellite delivery due to their popularity.

---

You've mentioned "IP delivered services", are you referring to IPTV or "over-the-top media services" (OTT)? 

The likes of BT TV, TalkTalk and the previous version of eir TV were IPTV services.
The on-demand and catch-up sections of Sky Q are an IPTV service.

Sky Glass/Stream are OTT services which uses the public internet. Both are very different.

I asked ChatGPT to describe the differences: 

Here are the key differences between IPTV and OTT:

1. Content Delivery Method:

   • IPTV: Involves the delivery of television content over a closed, managed network. This network is typically operated by a specific service provider, and the content is delivered through dedicated lines or networks.
   • OTT: Refers to the delivery of content over the open, public internet. OTT services are not tied to a specific network, and users can access them using any internet connection.

2. Network Infrastructure:

   • IPTV: Relies on a dedicated network infrastructure to deliver content. This infrastructure is owned and managed by the IPTV service provider, ensuring a controlled and optimised delivery of content.
   • OTT: Utilises the existing internet infrastructure for content delivery. As a result, it is more flexible and can be accessed from various devices and locations with an internet connection.

3. Service Providers:

   • IPTV: Typically offered by traditional telecommunications or cable service providers. These providers manage the entire end-to-end delivery of content to the user.
   • OTT: Can be provided by a variety of entities, including traditional broadcasters, streaming services, and even tech companies. OTT services are often "over the top" of traditional distribution channels.

4. User Control:

   • IPTV: Provides a more controlled and linear viewing experience. Users may have access to live TV channels and on-demand content, but the overall experience is managed by the service provider.
   • OTT: Offers greater user control, allowing viewers to choose when and where to consume content. OTT services commonly provide on-demand libraries and personalised recommendations.

5. Device Compatibility:

   • IPTV: Typically requires dedicated set-top boxes or specific IPTV-compatible devices provided by the service provider.
   • OTT: Can be accessed on a wide range of devices, including smart TVs, computers, smartphones, tablets, and streaming media players.

In summary, while both IPTV and OTT deliver video content, they differ in their delivery methods, network infrastructure, service providers, user control, and device compatibility. IPTV operates over dedicated, managed networks, while OTT utilises the open internet for content delivery, offering greater flexibility and accessibility.

[d2h]

---

@ZyloKai wrote:

---

@d2h wrote:

---

@nigea99 wrote:

@ZyloKai 

In terms of your title for this discussion the reality is - yes Satellite TV is dying - it is a very expensive method of TV distribution which is being superseded by internet based transmission.

---

IP delivered services are only cost effective for as long as few people watch. The nature of IP delivery means that the fees increase exponentially with an increasing number of viewers/subscribers.

For arguments sake, a satellite broadcaster with no viewers will pay the same amount as a satellite broadcaster with 10m viewers. An IP delivered broadcaster with no viewers will pay much less than an IP delivered broadcaster with 10m viewers due to the increased CDN costs. For some broadcasters, IP costs will eventually exceed what they pay for satellite delivery due to their popularity.

---

You've mentioned "IP delivered services", are you referring to IPTV or "over-the-top media services" (OTT)?

Sky Glass/Stream are OTT services which uses the public internet. Both are very different.

---

An "IP delivered service" is used colloquially for a service delivered via the internet. Let's steer clear of any more rabbit holes. 

[rscott]

Don't believe everything the bot tells you ..

For example, the user interface comment is not accurate. There's no reason at all that an OTT and IPTV service couldn't have exactly the same UI.

The other comments only really apply if the IPTV provider is using multicast for streaming - that requires a closed network and specific hardware.

It also gets very confusing if you look at BT. Their TV service is delivered on dedicated hardware and a closed network (via multicast), but the subscriber can also view on their app, which is available on many devices and any network provider. 

So they're both an OTT and IPTV provider..

[Savageman12]

I believe that streaming via Sky Stream and Glass is the way that Sky can go to keep itself sustained. Satelitte TV is dying but linear TV is not dying in my opinion, it's just evolving. We'll have Sports, Public Services and Sky channels as well as News. 

Broadcasters do need to work to attract younger viewers to linear TV but the way to do it is FAST or internet only channels and get relevant stars (like YouTubers and Twitch Streamers),

[Stniuk]

Cancelling sky at the end of the year when the contract is up. There is nothing to watch on the sky channels. We use an Apple TV for streaming now. Times change. 

[Ev71]

My contract is up soon. 

Found a page to sign up to Stream. Was logged in and was quoted £19/month for the basic-ish package (no movies or sport).

Got to the end and got an error page saying because I have SkyQ, I can't have Stream.

It seems Sky aren't quite ready for people to proactively switch to Stream just yet.

[MarkGoldsmith]

---

@Ev71 wrote:

My contract is up soon. 

Found a page to sign up to Stream. Was logged in and was quoted £19/month for the basic-ish package (no movies or sport).

Got to the end and got an error page saying because I have SkyQ, I can't have Stream.

It seems Sky aren't quite ready for people to proactively switch to Stream just yet.

---

You need to phone Sky to switch from Sky Q to Glass/Stream.