Sky Q

TAFKAlawhec · 21-11-2015 4:35am

Just another technical point - a Sky Q installation with 'wideband' LNB feeds will not be able to be diplexed with a terrestrial UHF feed.

The Cush · 21-11-2015 11:44am

This was posted over on the DS forum, from the Sky Communal FAQ's. Looks like SCR will be included,

What is a Sky Q ready upgrade?

A Sky Q ready upgrade is an enhancement to your existing communal system where a Digital Single Cable Router switch (containing Ethan–Ready* technology) is fitted at the head-end allowing anyone that wants Sky Q to be connected.

*Project Ethan, internal development codename for SkyQ

bk · 21-11-2015 1:30pm

TAFKAlawhec wrote: »

I reckon that the main difference between the concept of the Sky Q system and that from different cable operators regarding cloud storage is about control over delivery.

The likes of UPC or Virgin would be able to control their own networking from the data centre to the customer, while the likes of Eir or BT/TalkTalk in the UK bundle their IPTV services in with their broadband & phone services where again they can control a lot of aspects of delivering from data centre to customer. However Sky doesn't have the same luxury.

Excellent post, I agree with you completely.

It is obvious that Sky are going this direction because of their satellite routes and their lack of broadband infrastructure in the UK and Ireland. Yes Sky "resells" Eirs and BT's FTTC broadband services, but they are just a reseller with little infrastructure of their own.

And I think they made a fundamentally bad business decision to not heavily invest in their own broadband network over the last 5 to 10 years, like Vodafone is doing now with ESB/Siro. I believe it will end up leaving Sky in a very weak position with little control over the primary way to distribute TV.

5 years from now every home in Ireland will have a minimum of 30Mb/s (NBP) and 10 years from now I expect the majority of homes will be on 1Gb/s FTTH and DOCSIS 3.1 cable.

However for those on communal systems like in blocks of flats will find it probably impossible to upgrade to Sky Q even if they have the required two feeds unless everyone on the same communal system upgrades at the same time as well (which could leave Freesat users out in the cold).

Something which very much concerns me. I'm on a Sky communal system, but I gave up on Sky years ago and I'm very happily using the communal system with an Enigma 2 FTA system. I'd be very pissed if I lose that because some neighbours want a mildly upgraded Sky Q system!
I expect Eir, Vodafone, BT, Virgin * are all going to go straight for IPTV + cloud based systems and to be honest, I think people will love it. Much cheaper upfront costs (€400 Sky Q box, versus probably free stick) and likely cheaper ongoing costs, with the awesome ability to stream your recordings from the cloud to any device you own, anywhere, anytime.

In my opinion far more attractive then Sky's approach.

I also expect we will see ad supported TV channels basically become free (or at least extremely cheap) when bundled with Broadband and Phone from these companies. Unlike for Sky, for whom TV is their primary product, for Eir/BT/Vigin, etc. broadband is their primary product and TV/phone are just secondary value adds for them, so I expect they will very aggressively price the normal channels.

I honestly believe Sky could end up finding themselves in trouble for going down the wrong technology path.

* Virgin will probably make use of a mixed cable digital TV + IPTV + cloud approach, but in the longterm I can see them going fully IPTV too.

More Music · 21-11-2015 2:30pm

bk wrote: »

....It is obvious that Sky are going this direction because of their satellite routes and their lack of broadband infrastructure in the UK and Ireland........And I think they made a fundamentally bad business decision to not heavily invest in their own broadband network over the last 5 to 10 years, like Vodafone is doing now with ESB/Siro. I believe it will end up leaving Sky in a very weak position with little control over the primary way to distribute TV.
\

Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Spotify etc. don't have their own broadband infrastructure to distribute their services. Doesn't hinder them.

Kensington · 21-11-2015 3:01pm

bk wrote: »

However for those on communal systems like in blocks of flats will find it probably impossible to upgrade to Sky Q even if they have the required two feeds unless everyone on the same communal system upgrades at the same time as well (which could leave Freesat users out in the cold).

Something which very much concerns me. I'm on a Sky communal system, but I gave up on Sky years ago and I'm very happily using the communal system with an Enigma 2 FTA system. I'd be very pissed if I lose that because some neighbours want a mildly upgraded Sky Q system!

Couple of ways that can be easily managed thankfully though

On the older builds, two dishes (or two LNBs) with the existing (legacy) multiswitch in place which currently feeds all the apartments and a new SCR multiswitch running alongside. If you upgrade to SkyQ then your apartment feeds are patched out of the old multiswitch and into the new one. No bearing on your neighbours existing setup (and vice versa).

Any of the communal builds over the last few years by KBO are even easier. All four polarity/band combinations are already delivered into each apartment over a single fibre cable. Just swap out the fibre GTU in each apartment as and when they upgrade to SkyQ.

TAFKAlawhec · 21-11-2015 3:06pm

More Music wrote: »

Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Spotify etc. don't have their own broadband infrastructure to distribute their services. Doesn't hinder them.

Those services mentioned provide Over The Top content, and are reliant on existing ISP infrastructure, a different kettle of fish from the more tightly reigned services from Eir or BT where you must use them as your ISP but provide flexibility and control of service demands. Of course both systems can quite happily coexist.

winston_1 · 22-11-2015 12:09am

More Music wrote: »

Absolutely nothing, and you won't be doing anything illegal or wrong by a owning a Sky Q box.

Powerline technology has been around for years and anybody can go into a shop and buy a Powerline/home plug adaptor for their home. Sky haven't produced anything illegal.

Microwave ovens, phone chargers, video senders, baby monitors and magic eyes etc. all produce RF signals of some sort.

Do you not think this hasn't been thought about and approved?

Absolutely correct, perfectly legal to own PLT equipment. However creating interference is illegal.

Microwave ovens, video senders, and baby monitors all operate on allocated frequencies and do not cause interference to other services. Phone chargers and magic eyes can and should be suppressed. PLT equipment on the other hand works by generating interference over a wide spectrum range. There are no allocated frequencies for PLT. It just steals other peoples allocations.
Yes it has been thought about and found to cause spectrum pollution but the manufacturers and sellers don't give a toss. That does make it right.

winston_1 · 22-11-2015 12:12am

TAFKAlawhec wrote: »

However that might start to change with the introduction of PLTs using even higher frequencies if they start to interfere with people's FM & DAB reception.

Such interference is already here. Read this BBC white paper:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper195

MarkAnthony · 22-11-2015 12:36pm

bk wrote: »

I honestly believe Sky could end up finding themselves in trouble for going down the wrong technology path.

I disagree entirely I'm afraid.

They didn't go down the wrong technology path, they went down the only one that was available at the time. Sky aren't selling the same product as Virgin et al any way; they're a content and service provider. I understand your thinking but it's an urban centric one. If you want TV in rural areas who do you turn to - Sky, they have completely cornered the market in those areas for pay TV.

As people have pointed out above many companies sell content without a broadband infrastructure, does it hinder them? Well that's a question worth exploring - it certainly hasn't stopped them being successful however. All Virgin, Eir and presumably Vodafone do is resell Sky TV, Sky have chosen the more sensible route of reselling broadband. After all what's the more sensible route? Get involved in a massive, saturated, technical and highly regulated industry in a country where outside of Dublin it's a pig and 4 sheep for miles around or produce TV content to the lowest common denominator? Even the big budget stuff on Sky is all bought from HBO.

As I've said before and the point is being missed, I think, by the more technical amongst you is Sky is a service provider. One can argue all you want about how X is available cheaper though Y or doing it yourself but people will pay huge money to have things done for them, and that's what Sky do and no one can argue the products they produce aren't as polished as a Tallaght Nanna's living room if you're willing to pay.

Edit: on apartments I'm sure they'll leave a mixture of dishes. It's common knowledge that they fully intend on running the two services side by side. I'm sure the local burglars will take note of who has the fancy audio/visual kit in their homes, nicely signed by the LNBs! :pac:

icdg · 23-11-2015 2:43pm

Talk in the Sunday Times at the weekend - though little more than speculation - that Now TV could make its way to Ireland next year. The only stock id put in the article is where it is coming from - News UK and Sky having a common shareholder in Murdoch.

_Kaiser_ · 25-11-2015 12:23am

Personally I don't see anything here to get excited about... yes it's a high spec box but the price and monthly subs it'll likely require will be ridiculous - look at the existing (non-offer) prices for the basic channels and movies, sports, HD and maybe a multiroom sub. It's already at crazy levels!! You only have to look at the thread on BA to see how people are trying to cut the costs of TV.

- More tuners.. honestly, with all the +1 channels, repeats, catch-up TV and so on, does anyone really record that many programmes at once?
- Ultra HD.. meh! Considering they charge up to €15 for "standard HD" and it's really only worthwhile if you have sports/movies, how much will this cost, and how much content?
- Wireless viewing.. OK this is an improvement, but given how restrictive Sky Go is now with regards to what it'll play on, will it be worth the hassle?
- The lack of compatibility with existing hardware without probably more expense will also be an issue for existing multiroom users.

In short I think the likely cost to benefits ratio won't make it a big winner outside of early adopters IMO. I think BK's vision of a Sky-Fire stick is the way to go myself. Personally I watch very little live TV anymore beyond news and sports and coughing up €400 (probably closer to €500 if you want the full experience) for what is still just TV doesn't seem attractive at a time when people are cancelling in favour of options like Netflix and streaming. I'm not even going to mention "other" sources but these are more popular now too and DO impact - why else would Sky try so hard to shut them down - and with heavy competition from BT on the football front (which requires a separate sub as well!) I just can't see it adding up for people.

Avada · 25-11-2015 3:02am

icdg wrote: »

Talk in the Sunday Times at the weekend - though little more than speculation - that Now TV could make its way to Ireland next year. The only stock id put in the article is where it is coming from - News UK and Sky having a common shareholder in Murdoch.

I'd well believe it. I was told by someone in the know that they were hoping to launch it here. Apparently rights are already agreed.

murpho999 · 25-11-2015 1:11pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Personally I don't see anything here to get excited about... yes it's a high spec box but the price and monthly subs it'll likely require will be ridiculous - look at the existing (non-offer) prices for the basic channels and movies, sports, HD and maybe a multiroom sub. It's already at crazy levels!! You only have to look at the thread on BA to see how people are trying to cut the costs of TV.

- More tuners.. honestly, with all the +1 channels, repeats, catch-up TV and so on, does anyone really record that many programmes at once?
- Ultra HD.. meh! Considering they charge up to €15 for "standard HD" and it's really only worthwhile if you have sports/movies, how much will this cost, and how much content?
- Wireless viewing.. OK this is an improvement, but given how restrictive Sky Go is now with regards to what it'll play on, will it be worth the hassle?
- The lack of compatibility with existing hardware without probably more expense will also be an issue for existing multiroom users.

In short I think the likely cost to benefits ratio won't make it a big winner outside of early adopters IMO. I think BK's vision of a Sky-Fire stick is the way to go myself. Personally I watch very little live TV anymore beyond news and sports and coughing up €400 (probably closer to €500 if you want the full experience) for what is still just TV doesn't seem attractive at a time when people are cancelling in favour of options like Netflix and streaming. I'm not even going to mention "other" sources but these are more popular now too and DO impact - why else would Sky try so hard to shut them down - and with heavy competition from BT on the football front (which requires a separate sub as well!) I just can't see it adding up for people.

Whilst I am against paying €15 per month for HD, I do think TV is better for it. Watching any show in HD is better than SD not only for sports and movies. I would never go back to not having it.

I really wonder what they will charge for UHD when on line. Will be ridiculous.

I don't understand why they don't charge for it , and use it as a selling point to attract new loyal subscribers.

MarkAnthony · 25-11-2015 1:20pm

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't understand why they don't charge for it , and use it as a selling point to attract new loyal subscribers.

Because their churn rate will be acceptable to the business as it is. I suspect it's probably so low that they have it at a level where no matter what they did you'd have people 'playing the game' with introductory offers.

lertsnim · 25-11-2015 4:26pm

murpho999 wrote: »

Whilst I am against paying €15 per month for HD, I do think TV is better for it.

HD was going to happen with or without the HD fee. I think it's farcical that they charge extra for what is normal now. But as long as people continue to pay for it I suppose they will and who can blame them. I'll continue with the free HD

ECO_Mental · 25-11-2015 9:33pm

lertsnim wrote: »

HD was going to happen with or without the HD fee. I think it's farcical that they charge extra for what is normal now. But as long as people continue to pay for it I suppose they will and who can blame them. I'll continue with the free HD

You are right, you pay for content whether you watch it on your phone or 4k it shouldn't matter. I never thought of it that way. Everything is filmed in HD now so the difference in production is nothing.

It should be like Netflix if you can get HD then great but not, lets dumb down the res. That saying do they charge for 4k

MarkAnthony · 26-11-2015 2:56am

ECO_Mental wrote: »

It should be like Netflix if you can get HD then great but not, lets dumb down the res. That saying do they charge for 4k

And for HD in certain territories.

To be fair to Netflix it would be an actual overhead. It is to Sky as well, but licencing aside which I don't know the model used there would be an additional overhead for HD broadcast. €15 per sub though, is it bollocks. Again that said you get the boxsets included, so when they have it at €7.50 it seems reasonable value. Yeah, Yeah I know they were free etc. etc.

danm14 · 01-12-2015 1:18am

icdg wrote: »

The manual tuning question is more about continued access to BBC and ITV regions, which is important to many people. That said (and the more technically minded may correct me on this one) I think the manual tuning is required in order for Sky to stick a DVB-S logo on it.

I don't think it's to do with DVB-S, I believe the manual tuning was originally added to obey some EU regulation or another that subscription boxes have to be usable for other free services as well as what they're designed for, but Sky half got round that by only allowing certain symbol rates and FECs.
I could be wrong but I think I read that somewhere

bk · 02-12-2015 11:45am

Excellent post _Kaiser_, it describes my own feelings very well.

On the one hand, when I first read about this new Sky Q box I was very excited. Being a tech geek and having been playing with media servers for many years (I use to hack US TiVo's to work in Ireland 15 years ago!!) I was initially very excited by this, because there is some nice tech in it.

But then when I stood back and thought about the ridiculous costs of Sky's services and what they are likely to charge for this, as you say the cost to benefit ratio just doesn't work out for me, nor do I expect it does for most people either.

Specially when I think about how little I watch live TV any more and how bad much of it has gotten, with the same old shows repeated constantly. I find 90% of my video watching is done on my fire TV now, with Netflix etc. Hell I even find youtube generally more entertaining then most live TV now!

I realise that Fire TV and over the top services aren't quite there yet in terms of ease of use for normal people. But I was hoping Sky would deliver that ease of use (at a price) to the general public. But I honestly don't think this is it and I think Sky might be going down the wrong technology route with this new service.

BTW Virgin just had a major update to the Horizon boxes a few days ago, that seem to have massively improved the user experience. It is much faster and better now, some are saying as good as Sky HD now.
Just a reminder that Sky Q doesn't do anything that the Horizon box can't already do and which Virgin give away for free! Now it is looking like Horizon might have just as good a UI, the only thing that was holding it back.

The Ayatolla · 02-12-2015 11:52am

bk wrote: »

Just a reminder that Sky Q doesn't do anything that the Horizon box can't already do and which Virgin give away for free! Now it is looking like Horizon might have just as good a UI, the only thing that was holding it back.

I'd be very interested in seeing this in use.

My previous experience with Horizon boxes hasn't been anyway decent at all.

bk · 02-12-2015 12:52pm

Oh, interesting, Virgin have just added Replay TV to their Horizon box:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2015/12/01/virgin-media-replay-startover-tv

Basically the ability to go back 7 days in the EPG and watch anything shown over the last 7 days on 26 channels. Basically a cloud DVR.

Kind of what I'm saying, makes +1 channels and dozens of tuners irrelevant when you have this ability.

Yes, I know it is only 26 channels and not all channels, but I do think it is the way to go. Imagine you could buy a little TV stick from Sky or Virgin and you could go back 7 days on any of the channels or watch any on demand content or even live TV, all without a big, expensive, multi tuner, 1TB box! And then you could do the same on your tablet, smart TV, etc.

That is the future of TV IMO.

JDxtra · 02-12-2015 1:00pm

Agree with BK - it's the future. I see they probably have rights issues to work out as not all shows on RTE are available. Some of the others seem to be fully supported.

As for the implementation on Horizon, it's a bit 'clunky' - but other than that it works really well. Virgin are recording the live stream themselves and chopping it up into shows (so, it includes all the adverts exactly as broadcast). Way better quality than the current players. Playback is also near instant.

The Ayatolla · 02-12-2015 1:01pm

bk wrote: »

Oh, interesting, Virgin have just added Replay TV to their Horizon box:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2015/12/01/virgin-media-replay-startover-tv

Basically the ability to go back 7 days in the EPG and watch anything shown over the last 7 days on 26 channels. Basically a cloud DVR.

Kind of what I'm saying, makes +1 channels and dozens of tuners irrelevant when you have this ability.

Yes, I know it is only 26 channels and not all channels, but I do think it is the way to go. Imagine you could buy a little TV stick from Sky or Virgin and you could go back 7 days on any of the channels or watch any on demand content or even live TV, all without a big, expensive, multi tuner, 1TB box! And then you could do the same on your tablet, smart TV, etc.

That is the future of TV IMO.

Spot on there. Great feature. Hopefully it expands. I'll keep an eye on Virgin. I have a pensioner in the house who is so used to Sky that nothing else will do at this stage. Nice to see Horizon making improvements.

_Kaiser_ · 02-12-2015 5:18pm

bk wrote: »

Excellent post _Kaiser_, it describes my own feelings very well.

On the one hand, when I first read about this new Sky Q box I was very excited. Being a tech geek and having been playing with media servers for many years (I use to hack US TiVo's to work in Ireland 15 years ago!!) I was initially very excited by this, because there is some nice tech in it.

But then when I stood back and thought about the ridiculous costs of Sky's services and what they are likely to charge for this, as you say the cost to benefit ratio just doesn't work out for me, nor do I expect it does for most people either.

Specially when I think about how little I watch live TV any more and how bad much of it has gotten, with the same old shows repeated constantly. I find 90% of my video watching is done on my fire TV now, with Netflix etc. Hell I even find youtube generally more entertaining then most live TV now!

I realise that Fire TV and over the top services aren't quite there yet in terms of ease of use for normal people. But I was hoping Sky would deliver that ease of use (at a price) to the general public. But I honestly don't think this is it and I think Sky might be going down the wrong technology route with this new service.

BTW Virgin just had a major update to the Horizon boxes a few days ago, that seem to have massively improved the user experience. It is much faster and better now, some are saying as good as Sky HD now.
Just a reminder that Sky Q doesn't do anything that the Horizon box can't already do and which Virgin give away for free! Now it is looking like Horizon might have just as good a UI, the only thing that was holding it back.

I was seriously looking at a FTA PVR/FreeSat setup a few months back but I can't get saorview where I am without an external aerial (which isn't an option in a rented apartment) so I negotiated a deal with Sky for the basics.

But on top of that I get all the boxsets, movies, and HD content I want for significantly less cost than I'd pay to Sky, pretty much instantly thanks to fibre broadband

THAT is the future.. on-demand, instant-access to a huge library of content either on a PPV basis or a monthly sub (the start of which you can see with the Virgin Replay update), and THAT is the way Sky should be going, not persisting with an outdated business model as they seem to be, with token (extra cost) concessions like Sky Go and On Demand/Boxsets... just somewhat shinier with this new (premium cost) box they're launching.

ThisRegard · 02-12-2015 5:38pm

It's looking like Virgins TV service is now worth switching to from Sky?

The Ayatolla · 02-12-2015 5:46pm

I see their multiroom is now 11 per month for a Digital + box.

Does that mean you can also record 4 things at once? Does that box also carry HD channels if they're in your pack?

former total · 02-12-2015 6:36pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

But on top of that I get all the boxsets, movies, and HD content I want for significantly less cost than I'd pay to Sky, pretty much instantly thanks to fibre broadband
.

If your comparison is pirated content, then Sky is going to seem expensive whatever their price or business model.

_Kaiser_ · 02-12-2015 7:27pm

former total wrote: »

If your comparison is pirated content, then Sky is going to seem expensive whatever their price or business model.

Actually I was referring more to services like Netflix

icdg · 02-12-2015 10:42pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's looking like Virgins TV service is now worth switching to from Sky?

Not even close from a content point of view, unfortunately. Though if you have had Sky, keeping a free to air satellite receiver going will make up quite a bit of the difference.

ThisRegard · 03-12-2015 10:41am

Are you actually losing that much content? Sky Atlantic looks like the only decent channel that would be missed. I can't see what boxsets are on My Prime so I can't compare them.

Sky Q

Comments