Sky TV is dying like ITV Digital.

[Yoghurt]

@DJCrimson  Definitely if it was dying I'd be getting ready to find another tv provider so glad sky isn't  dying I love it 

[Nigelb1972]

ITV Digital failed because they bought a platform (On-Digital) that rife with illegal access because the encryption system was extremely weak and blank cards and card programmers were cheap and easy to buy, the encryption keys were also extremely easy to find on the internet. They then decided to pay way too much for Football League rights in a hope to rival Sky's Premier League package... It failed on all fronts... That's why ITV Digital failed..

[Marlu-Nyu]

Sky, like many traditional TV broadcasters, is facing the slow decline of linear TV. Satellite and cable TV are gradually dying, replaced by streaming and FAST services. Platforms like Pluto TV have shown that viewers don't mind watching a few ads to access channels dedicated to a single show or a small group of shows.

Sky could adopt a similar strategy by offering FAST channels for popular franchises like The Simpsons, Futurama, sci-fi channels featuring shows like Lost or From, and other fan favorites.

My main point is that I don't want to be forced to switch to Sky Glass or Sky Stream in 5–10 years. I want to continue using Sky Q for the foreseeable future, even if only as an app to access these FAST channels. Sky has many options to keep Sky Q relevant: for example, moving all traditional satellite channels to 101–499 and reserving 501–999 for FAST channels. Over the next 10–15 years, satellite channels may shrink to just a few key offerings, while FAST channels become the primary viewing experience.

Since this is a Sky forum, I've focused on Sky-specific solutions. My suggestions show how Sky Q could continue to thrive even if Sky eventually does not renew its satellite contract with Astra and traditional satellite TV fades away.

I want Sky and Sky Q to remain a viable option for as long as possible.

[Yoghurt]

@Marlu-Nyu  It's continuing until 2029 or 2030

[d2h]

---

@Marlu-Nyu wrote:

Sky, like many traditional TV broadcasters, is facing the slow decline of linear TV. Satellite and cable TV are gradually dying, replaced by streaming and FAST services. Platforms like Pluto TV have shown that viewers don't mind watching a few ads to access channels dedicated to a single show or a small group of shows.

Sky could adopt a similar strategy by offering FAST channels for popular franchises like The Simpsons, Futurama, sci-fi channels featuring shows like Lost or From, and other fan favorites.

My main point is that I don't want to be forced to switch to Sky Glass or Sky Stream in 5–10 years. I want to continue using Sky Q for the foreseeable future, even if only as an app to access these FAST channels. Sky has many options to keep Sky Q relevant: for example, moving all traditional satellite channels to 101–499 and reserving 501–999 for FAST channels. Over the next 10–15 years, satellite channels may shrink to just a few key offerings, while FAST channels become the primary viewing experience.

Since this is a Sky forum, I've focused on Sky-specific solutions. My suggestions show how Sky Q could continue to thrive even if Sky eventually does not renew its satellite contract with Astra and traditional satellite TV fades away.

I want Sky and Sky Q to remain a viable option for as long as possible.

---

I really wanted my portable CD player and minidisc player to remain viable options.

That didn't go too well for me.

Sky Q won't be far behind. Don't hold on. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Marlu-Nyu wrote:

My main point is that I don't want to be forced to switch to Sky Glass or Sky Stream in 5–10 years. I want to continue using Sky Q for the foreseeable future, even if only as an app to access these FAST channels. 

---

Realistically this is not a 'Sky' decision (and it's much sooner than ten years away).  Q is decade-old legacy hardware deployed in a handful of European countries and has a total userbase smaller than the individual population of many US states: there's absolutely no compelling reason for Comcast to retain its use as an online device in a regional market when they have their own global platform which completely integrates with their server-side services, support systems and workflow practices.

If Disney had won the bidding war, things might be different.