Sky Q

irishgeo

icdg wrote:

The lack of support for Freesat on the same system then brings another question to mind. Will manual tuning still be supported? The specs suggest that it will, but I think this is something many Irish homes will be wanting to know before ordering.

Sky don't install dishes above the 1st floor anymore

MarkAnthony

icdg wrote: »

That's interesting, from the point of view that it makes downgrading from Sky to FTA a lot harder. To switch to a Freesat or generic FTA receiver will require the LNB to be swapped back to a normal one. That's all fine and dandy for some people (including I suspect many here) but others may not be so comfortable with doing it, particularly those whose dishes have been placed in a particularly high location (chimney etc). That said, arguably the type of people who will be installing SkyQ won't be about to drop Sky completely either.

The lack of support for Freesat on the same system then brings another question to mind. Will manual tuning still be supported? The specs suggest that it will, but I think this is something many Irish homes will be wanting to know before ordering.

I would wait till we see what Sky is proposing before commenting on pricing.

I can't imagine the type of person that would go in for this would really care about Freesat. They're likely to want an all in one supported service with a monthly fee. The current Sky offering will continue and anyone particularly bothered about freesat compatibility would, no doubt, be better off remaining on the current Sky service.

Granted all of this can be done with various gizmos and gadgets around the gaffe. But anyone who thinks a company can't make bazzilions by taking an idea, polishing it up and firing it out for 2-3 times the price of the competition has clearly never heard of Apple or Steve Jobs :pac:

(No disrespect intended BK, you're talking a lot of sense to me but I'd be a bit more techy than your average Sky customer. That said I'm also lazy so will almost certainly be jumping on this bandwagon, price dependant)

icdg

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.

bk

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I can't imagine the type of person that would go in for this would really care about Freesat. They're likely to want an all in one supported service with a monthly fee. The current Sky offering will continue and anyone particularly bothered about freesat compatibility would, no doubt, be better off remaining on the current Sky service.

I think there are an awful lot of people out there who have a Sky+ box in the main room and then use Freesat boxes as a form of free multiroom.

This won't be attractive to them, not with the rumoured prices for the multiroom subs.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

(No disrespect intended BK, you're talking a lot of sense to me but I'd be a bit more techy than your average Sky customer. That said I'm also lazy so will almost certainly be jumping on this bandwagon, price dependant)

Actually I wasn't really talking about this from the whole techy, Kodi, free perspective.

Having played with a FireTV, Netflix, etc. now, I'm certain this is the future of TV.

But what I'm talking about is Sky doing their own FireTV type stick. Imagine a Sky Go Stick that you plug into the HDMI port, which gives you exactly the same interface and EPG you see on the Sky Q box and all the same channels as the Sky Q box. The only difference being the channels are streamed to you over IPTV, rather then satellite.

Now imagine you press record or series link. It records the show for you just as it does today. But instead of storing it locally, it instead stores it in the "cloud" and when you press play it streams it from the cloud.

Using your tablet? no problem, it can stream all the same TV channels and access all your recordings in the cloud.

All of this from the customers perspective would work in exactly the same way as if they had a Sky Q box.

So what would the advantage be? Well there would be no need for a big €500 box with 2TB of storage space and 12 tuners! Instead the stick would cost just €25 and give you pretty much all the same ability. You also gain access to your recordings while out and about on your tablet. With Sky Q you have to sync your recordings to the tablet before leaving your home.

To be honest it is very inefficient placing what is basically a very powerful, expensive media center PC in every persons home, it is much more efficient to push all the hardware into the cloud.

The advantage of the cloud is you need for less hardware as it is shared. So with the cloud, when you press record, it will make a copy of the file on the cloud server. But in reality you probably aren't the only person recording the same show, likely thousands of other people are too. So on the cloud they don't make 1000 of files, instead they make just one (with some backups obviously) and link the other 1000 recordings to this one, this saving massive amounts of space (and thus costs).

With the Sky Q setup, they are basically pushing the cost of equipment onto the customer in a very inefficient way.

BTW It seems that UPC/Virgin are already doing exactly what I describe above, a system where everything is in the cloud, in some of their Eastern European markets. I think it will only be a matter of time before it makes it's way here.

helimachoptor

bk wrote: »

Lots of detailed information here:

https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/skyq/product%20fact%20sheets

Some highlights:
- Only the Sky Q Silver box will support 4k (in future), the "standard" Sky Q and Sky Q mini boxes will only support 1080p HD.

- Rumour has it that the Sky Q Silver box will cost £300 to £400 plus as much as £20 per month extra sub!!

- This will require a new wideband LNB, which will in turn make your setup incompatible with old Sky boxes and Freesat boxes.

On the one hand, this all sounds very exciting, some very cool tech. On the other hand, it also feels like it maybe far too expensive and 5 years too late.

After all why have a €500 box in your living room, with 12 tuners and TB of storage, when really there isn't anything you couldn't do with a €25 FireTV type stick and cloud storage.

It all seems incredibly old fashioned and inefficient.

At this point prices are rumours, i wouldn't pay too much attention to them/

bk

helimachoptor wrote: »

At this point prices are rumours, i wouldn't pay too much attention to them/

Well given that the current 2TB Sky HD box costs €250 + €30 install and when it first launched it was close to €400, then I'd say the estimate for a new 4K, 12 tuner, 4K box that requires installation of a new LNB won't give you much change from €400. I'd say the rumours are pretty accurate.

Why else would they announce these new boxes, but not announce a price?

That is a normal tactic when something is very expensive. Get people all excited and good press for the new tech and then announce the far too expensive price a few months later.

Personally I think the pricing is very accurate. Perhaps the standard non-hd Sky Q box will be more reasonably priced, but then what does it really give you over the existing boxes? Would it be worth it to lose Freesat for multiroom compatibility?

murpho999

Sky product manager also referred to it as a premium product.

Like everything else Sky introduce it will be pricey at first and then fall as new offers come on board. It's winning and keeping subs is the main revenue earner for Sky.

helimachoptor

bk wrote: »

Well given that the current 2TB Sky HD box costs €250 + €30 install and when it first launched it was close to €400, then I'd say the estimate for a new 4K, 12 tuner, 4K box that requires installation of a new LNB won't give you much change from €400. I'd say the rumours are pretty accurate.

Why else would they announce these new boxes, but not announce a price?

That is a normal tactic when something is very expensive. Get people all excited and good press for the new tech and then announce the far too expensive price a few months later.

Personally I think the pricing is very accurate. Perhaps the standard non-hd Sky Q box will be more reasonably priced, but then what does it really give you over the existing boxes? Would it be worth it to lose Freesat for multiroom compatibility?

Will just need to wait and see if you're right bk :pac:

former total

murpho999 wrote: »

Sky product manager also referred to it as a premium product.

Like everything else Sky introduce it will be pricey at first and then fall as new offers come on board. It's winning and keeping subs is the main revenue earner for Sky.

This is not just true for Sky though, all new tech is priced at a premium when it comes out and prices fall as uptake increases. People having a dig at Sky for charging extra for vastly superior equipment. with all the costs that go with it, aren't living in the real world.

From my own point of view, all this jive about multi-room connectivity isn't going to sell it for me. Like, how often are you going to pause something in one room, then move to another room and continue watching? And Sky have so much on demand/catch up content that multiple tuners really aren't a big deal.

The key thing is going to be UHD - when is it going to come on stream and how much content will they have? For all the talk about Netflix 4K, the actual amount of programming available is ridiculously small. Content is king and if it doesn't materialise, then this isn't going to take off.

The Ayatolla

Too many advantages at the moment to using the legacy system as mentioned prior. And hopefully the launch of SkyQ has a positive effect on the price of the "older" system.

Only two in my household at the moment.

Sky+ box downstairs and magic eye in the main bedroom and kitchen. Paying 60 a month for every channel inc HD.

Spare room has saorview with a Sky FTA box. Also have a PS4 in the spare room with Sky Go and an iPad (with a variety of Sky / alternative apps like TV Catchup/TVPlayer, BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 4oD.

All TV's have Saorview and a Fire stick or Chromecast and I have Amazon Video UK and Netflix.

murpho999

former total wrote: »

This is not just true for Sky though, all new tech is priced at a premium when it comes out and prices fall as uptake increases. People having a dig at Sky for charging extra for vastly superior equipment. with all the costs that go with it, aren't living in the real world.

From my own point of view, all this jive about multi-room connectivity isn't going to sell it for me. Like, how often are you going to pause something in one room, then move to another room and continue watching? And Sky have so much on demand/catch up content that multiple tuners really aren't a big deal.

The key thing is going to be UHD - when is it going to come on stream and how much content will they have? For all the talk about Netflix 4K, the actual amount of programming available is ridiculously small. Content is king and if it doesn't materialise, then this isn't going to take off.

This is not new tech. It's a PVR/sattelite box.

It has new features but it's not a new invention.

The reason Sky get criticised by me is that they make money from the box from subscriptions and also TV advertising.

So they charging more at launch is creaming it and is not like when CD players or DVD players were introduced first.

When those products came out first they were truly new products and sold at a premium but the manufacturers made no other money from them so it's very different to how Sky operate.

Main features for me are UHD and being able to record 4 programs. Rest is not really important to me.

excollier

former total wrote: »

.....The key thing is going to be UHD - when is it going to come on stream and how much content will they have? For all the talk about Netflix 4K, the actual amount of programming available is ridiculously small. Content is king and if it doesn't materialise, then this isn't going to take off.

Crap content in HD or 3D or UHD is just that, hi def crap

murpho999

excollier wrote: »

Crap content in HD or 3D or UHD is just that, hi def crap

In fairness, that's a matter of opinion but that's related to the channels and what they broadcast and not the Sky box.

Either way, there is loads of good stuff on TV these days, especially all the TV series.

MarkAnthony

bk wrote: »

I think there are an awful lot of people out there who have a Sky+ box in the main room and then use Freesat boxes as a form of free multiroom.

This won't be attractive to them, not with the rumoured prices for the multiroom subs.



Actually I wasn't really talking about this from the whole techy, Kodi, free perspective.

Having played with a FireTV, Netflix, etc. now, I'm certain this is the future of TV.

But what I'm talking about is Sky doing their own FireTV type stick. Imagine a Sky Go Stick that you plug into the HDMI port, which gives you exactly the same interface and EPG you see on the Sky Q box and all the same channels as the Sky Q box. The only difference being the channels are streamed to you over IPTV, rather then satellite.

Now imagine you press record or series link. It records the show for you just as it does today. But instead of storing it locally, it instead stores it in the "cloud" and when you press play it streams it from the cloud.

Using your tablet? no problem, it can stream all the same TV channels and access all your recordings in the cloud.

All of this from the customers perspective would work in exactly the same way as if they had a Sky Q box.

So what would the advantage be? Well there would be no need for a big €500 box with 2TB of storage space and 12 tuners! Instead the stick would cost just €25 and give you pretty much all the same ability. You also gain access to your recordings while out and about on your tablet. With Sky Q you have to sync your recordings to the tablet before leaving your home.

To be honest it is very inefficient placing what is basically a very powerful, expensive media center PC in every persons home, it is much more efficient to push all the hardware into the cloud.

The advantage of the cloud is you need for less hardware as it is shared. So with the cloud, when you press record, it will make a copy of the file on the cloud server. But in reality you probably aren't the only person recording the same show, likely thousands of other people are too. So on the cloud they don't make 1000 of files, instead they make just one (with some backups obviously) and link the other 1000 recordings to this one, this saving massive amounts of space (and thus costs).

With the Sky Q setup, they are basically pushing the cost of equipment onto the customer in a very inefficient way.

BTW It seems that UPC/Virgin are already doing exactly what I describe above, a system where everything is in the cloud, in some of their Eastern European markets. I think it will only be a matter of time before it makes it's way here.

I don't disagree with a single word. However I fall back on my Apple analogy. There will be no shortage of uptake of this; because it's simple and supported.

bk

former total wrote: »

This is not just true for Sky though, all new tech is priced at a premium when it comes out and prices fall as uptake increases. People having a dig at Sky for charging extra for vastly superior equipment. with all the costs that go with it, aren't living in the real world.

The thing is there isn't anything particularly superior or ground breaking about this equipment.

In the end it is just a DVR, with a cpu, some ram, a HDD and some tuners wrapped in plastic. Really it isn't doing anything that the Virgin Horizon box can't already do for the past few years:

- Record 4 channels while watching a 5th, yup Horizon can do that.
- Stream from the STB to tablets, yup Horizon can do that and a lot more.
- Even the ability to stream to the mini boxes and continue on another mini box, yup Horizon can do that too (just not launched in Ireland yet):

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/03/04/upc-nederland-launches-horizon-client/


Maybe the UI and OS will be more polished then Horizon (but then it is 3 years late, so I would hope so), but hardware wise it isn't doing much extra. Just 4K on the silver box is the only thing that Horizon can't do.

In many ways this is just Sky catching up with Virgin/UPC 3 years late!

And they are going to want to charge €400 to €500 for all that!!!!

The thing is I think by paying for TV at all, you are already paying a premium. I think if a person is already paying at least €40 + for pay TV, when so many of the channels are already available for free on Freesat, you are already well into premium territory. Turning around and then asking that person to pay another €400 for this box and maybe as much as another €20 on top of their €40 subscription would simply be highway robbery IMO.

If Virgin can give their Horizon box away for free, I see no reason why Sky can't do the same with this very similar box (at the very least the non 4k one).

_John C

Wow, amazing. Imagine watching a program in the sitting room and then pausing it to goto the kitchen for some grub and be able to continue watching in the kitchen.
Ground breaking stuff...............
.................................Oh hang on, Ive been doing that with years!!!
Seems Im pretty advanced then

Looks like Sky are re packaging stuff for a premium price thats already available. I recently cancelled Sky and bought a new combi box with dual satellite and dual terrestrial tuners. I can record EVERY saorview and a couple of satellite channels all at the same time. I think it can max about 12 recordings at the same time.
You dont need Sky to do this stuff! Lots of great free tv available. We dont miss the Sky channels at all. It was a great move for us.

3D failed for Sky so I guess its time for them to push another overpriced service thats not needed.

Sorry cant help myself, this is taken from a sky website:
"The system is based on the notion of 'fluid viewing', so that customers can watch programmes across a number of screens - for example, pausing a show in one room, then watching it in another."

Amazing....(Has nobody been using co-ax and magic eyes or remote control extenders all this time?)

Gerry Wicklow

"...fluid viewing..."
Is that a posh way of saying "taking the p**s"?

MarkAnthony

Last time I'm gonna say it as it obviously not getting through.

Did anyone use MP3 players before the ipod - yes
Did anyone use tablets before the ipad - yes
Did anyone use laptops before the Apple ones - yes

Scoff all you want this will be a success for Sky. I'm also not sure where people are getting the price points from.

I'm not saying you lot aren't right, I'm just saying it will be do what Sky do - bring certain technologies to the mainstream.

MarkAnthony

bk wrote: »

If Virgin can give their Horizon box away for free, I see no reason why Sky can't do the same with this very similar box (at the very least the non 4k one).

There is some (dilerate perhaps) confusion over the capability of the lower end box.

ThisRegard

_John C wrote: »

Amazing....(Has nobody been using co-ax and magic eyes or remote control extenders all this time?)

Don't work very well with tablets and the likes, and you still need to leave the box from which the signal is coming from tuned to that station.

People are getting caught up too much in this particular aspect I think.

MarkAnthony

Incidentally even with the absolutely full Sky package, someone mad into Sports and a family the size of a Kerry farmer's, who can find enough to be recording more than two channels at once with the thin spread of crap that is mainstream TV?

I'm a major proponent of Sky and what they do. I couldn't find three things to clash on recording if I was paid to! (Okay maybe I could without +1 channels and the repeats in the wee hours of the morning - occasionally, very occasionally.)

A little OT I grant you.

ThisRegard

It's very easy to have that, particularly at prime time. Thankfully there's usually repeats on the sky channels elsewhere in the week or on the catch up services, but it's a problem with some stuff on RTE and the BBC.

icdg

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Incidentally even with the absolutely full Sky package, someone mad into Sports and a family the size of a Kerry farmer's, who can find enough to be recording more than two channels at once with the thin spread of crap that is mainstream TV?

I'm a major proponent of Sky and what they do. I couldn't find three things to clash on recording if I was paid to! (Okay maybe I could without +1 channels and the repeats in the wee hours of the morning - occasionally, very occasionally.)

A little OT I grant you.

It happens to me more often than I'd care to admit (though can be avoided in many instances through the use of +1s). Which is why I'm interested in SkyQ, but I really want to know what it's cost is. Anything more than a marginal (€5pm) or so increase and it falls into "not worth it" category.

MarkAnthony

icdg wrote: »

It happens to me more often than I'd care to admit (though can be avoided in many instances through the use of +1s). Which is why I'm interested in SkyQ, but I really want to know what it's cost is. Anything more than a marginal (€5pm) or so increase and it falls into "not worth it" category.

Fair enough. Especially given if you're a busy as that TV household, in most cases, it's fair to assume 2 x recordable boxes which means you have 4 recordings any way.

For me it's all about convenience. I love the idea of the mini boxes. Going firmly into the TMI category the tablet gets used on the bog more often than I'd care to admit, and two bedrooms have no TVs so finally getting a full service to the tablet rather than SkyGo which isn't great is something I'm looking forward too!

Edit my guess at pricing is the Subs as they are now plus full price HD with no option not to have it. I personally think there will be savings on the Multiscreen subs which has always been Sky's issue over UPC. (and Eir but they're sh!te). My guess is a basic sub (original) is going to set you back about €50 a month with 1 stream. (One box + one extra). For me given how much the TV gets used (which is nothing compared to you telly addicts it seems) is not bad in my book, given the basic sub + a multiscreen at the moment is €44 per month with no HD.

enfant terrible

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Going firmly into the TMI category the tablet gets used on the bog more often than I'd care to admit, and two bedrooms have no TVs so finally getting a full service to the tablet rather than SkyGo which isn't great is something I'm looking forward too!

Think i've watching sky on the bog since about 2006 with the slingbox.

Do these multi room boxes basically work like a slingbox?

bk

enfant terrible wrote: »

Think i've watching sky on the bog since about 2006 with the slingbox.

Do these multi room boxes basically work like a slingbox?

Yes, pretty much the same way, they are simply an IPTV streaming client.

bk

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Scoff all you want this will be a success for Sky. I'm also not sure where people are getting the price points from.

I'm not saying you lot aren't right, I'm just saying it will be do what Sky do - bring certain technologies to the mainstream.

And what exactly will this box do that other boxes can't do?

In the end you are going to be watching the same crappy SD and HD channels you do today, with zero improvement.

The Sky boxes today do HD just fine and they also do multiroom just fine.

Literally all this gives you extra is the ability to watch something recorded on another box. That is all!!

Really don't seem anything exciting to me. Certainly nothing worth paying hundreds extra for in box fees and subs.

Chris_Bradley

No 4k content is laughable, these boxes will cost an arm & a leg and for what?

Nothing to see here folks.... move along & keep your hard earned.

ThisRegard

bk wrote: »

The Sky boxes today do HD just fine

Fine, but could be better with 1080p. My Netflix stream has a noticeably better picture than a lot of the HD channels on Sky.

Chris_Bradley wrote: »

No 4k content is laughable, these boxes will cost an arm & a leg and for what?

Nothing to see here folks.... move along & keep your hard earned.

Nobody know what it's going to cost, or what the subs will be. People are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing at the moment.

greendom

ThisRegard wrote: »

Fine, but could be better with 1080p. My Netflix stream has a noticeably better picture than a lot of the HD channels on Sky.




Nobody know what it's going to cost, or what the subs will be. People are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing at the moment.

Sky calling the product "premium" is surely preparing the market for a costly product ?

MarkAnthony

bk wrote: »

And what exactly will this box do that other boxes can't do?

In the end you are going to be watching the same crappy SD and HD channels you do today, with zero improvement.

The Sky boxes today do HD just fine and they also do multiroom just fine.

Literally all this gives you extra is the ability to watch something recorded on another box. That is all!!

Really don't seem anything exciting to me. Certainly nothing worth paying hundreds extra for in box fees and subs.

The MS offering is vastly improved.

Centralizing everything and the new interface is something I'd like.

The fee to me and many others will probably be worth it. To others it won't. For what I use I don't find Sky particularly expensive. Fair enough I'm on an offer and pretty much always am. I don't watch sport and for the odd movie I use the store.

Edit : I rarely watch the channels. Maybe stuff recorded off Atlantic.

More Music

Maybe some are missing the point. Of course you can currently pause your Sky Box and resume watching in the kitchen via magic eye, but whoever is back in the living room can't watch anything else on the Sky box.

This will allow you to resume your own recording on a mini box or tablet and free up the main Sky box again. You will even be able to download onto your tablet and take it with you. Great for those in rural Ireland who have ****e mobile broadband and can't rely on it for streaming. If you don't want to download it you can use Sky Go to stream on demand.

Nobody is forcing you to pay Sky for this or anything else. You can keep your current Sky receiver if you want, or junk the whole lot.

Yes, other boxes like Horizon do a lot of this stuff already but look at the moaning on here alone about those boxes and the crap user experience.

Sky will do it when they are ready and get it right, whether you want to pay their prices is another story.

Sky 3D is gimmicky, a waste of time and maybe a failure but that's no reason to say I'm glad I ditched Sky now, look at this crap 2 years too late.

winston_1

It seems sky Q is very bad news:


Southgate
November 18, 2015

The new Sky Q TV system will use the power line communications system PLT which can render the HF radio spectrum unusable

As with the introduction of Sky+ in 2001 the new Sky Q is initially being introduced as a premium service but it may be expected that over the next decade the equipment will be rolled out to all the 10.5 million homes with Sky.

PLT Standard prEN50561-1 relaxed the HF emission limits by almost 10,000 times (38 dB)
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/august2012/

The Ayatolla

What does that mean for the average joe? :P

winston_1

Could be a knock on the door from Comreg if there are complaints of interference.

byte

I doubt Comreg will do anything.

More Music

The Ayatolla wrote: »

What does that mean for the average joe? :P

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?

TAFKAlawhec

bk wrote: »

Actually I wasn't really talking about this from the whole techy, Kodi, free perspective.

Having played with a FireTV, Netflix, etc. now, I'm certain this is the future of TV.

But what I'm talking about is Sky doing their own FireTV type stick. Imagine a Sky Go Stick that you plug into the HDMI port, which gives you exactly the same interface and EPG you see on the Sky Q box and all the same channels as the Sky Q box. The only difference being the channels are streamed to you over IPTV, rather then satellite.

Now imagine you press record or series link. It records the show for you just as it does today. But instead of storing it locally, it instead stores it in the "cloud" and when you press play it streams it from the cloud.

Using your tablet? no problem, it can stream all the same TV channels and access all your recordings in the cloud.

All of this from the customers perspective would work in exactly the same way as if they had a Sky Q box.

So what would the advantage be? Well there would be no need for a big €500 box with 2TB of storage space and 12 tuners! Instead the stick would cost just €25 and give you pretty much all the same ability. You also gain access to your recordings while out and about on your tablet. With Sky Q you have to sync your recordings to the tablet before leaving your home.

To be honest it is very inefficient placing what is basically a very powerful, expensive media center PC in every persons home, it is much more efficient to push all the hardware into the cloud.

The advantage of the cloud is you need for less hardware as it is shared. So with the cloud, when you press record, it will make a copy of the file on the cloud server. But in reality you probably aren't the only person recording the same show, likely thousands of other people are too. So on the cloud they don't make 1000 of files, instead they make just one (with some backups obviously) and link the other 1000 recordings to this one, this saving massive amounts of space (and thus costs).

With the Sky Q setup, they are basically pushing the cost of equipment onto the customer in a very inefficient way.

BTW It seems that UPC/Virgin are already doing exactly what I describe above, a system where everything is in the cloud, in some of their Eastern European markets. I think it will only be a matter of time before it makes it's way here.

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.

It could do a similar IPTV & cloud delivery system to that of BT & TalkTalk with their own LLU network in the UK at least if all of it was contained solely within this. But this poses more problems when delivery is through more than one platform with both DVB-S & broadband delivery. Sky can maintain nearly all control over delivery via satellite through SES, but the internet delivery is much more problematic as their customers will all have different service speeds, levels and contention that is impossible for Sky to have any major control over for all their customers - particularly those that don't have "superfast" broadband speeds and especially those relying on 3G/4G mobile connections or satellite broadband.

Also with having the customer not being tied to the service providers' internet ecosystem like UPC, Eir or BT do, Sky don't have the ability to automatically zero-rate customers using cloud storage - whilst their current services involving box sets, BBC iPlayer etc. are IP delivered as is Now TV, users are told to be aware of costs against any limits they may have with their ISP therefore recording on to the receiver's own storage means the customer is not charged for anything beyond their subscription for timeshifting. Using a cloud system whereby the customer can't save to their own recording device but relies on an internet connection will almost always see such streaming use significantly increase. So I'm not really surprised that Sky haven't gone for such an approach as the platform is not a "wired" system the way DVB-C & IPTV services from Eir & BT are; too much out of their hands to make service level guarantees.

On the whole, it looks like a decent bit of kit even if it isn't exactly groundbreaking in terms of technology on an international scale - but Sky are pretty good at both marketing and delivering slick user interfaces. Someone mentioned Apple - well I remember back in 2007 getting a Symbian S60v3 smart phone that was pretty good for its time - then the 1st gen iPhone was announced and despite lacking a fair bit in terms of hardware and to a lesser extent in its firmware (inability to send an SMS to multiple recipients and crippled bluetooth capabilities as examples) compared to the likes of Nokia's then flagship N95, the fact that it had an extremely usable touch-screen interface that hadn't been seen much on popular phones up until then along with a slick UI and the fact that it was "APPLE!!!!" meant it sold lots and became a disruptive game changer for the mobile phone market. Right now if you have an Enigma2 receiver you could do quite a bit of what the Sky Q silver receiver promises, but getting it to be user-friendly can be a challenge. If Sky get it right on their plan for multimedia integration with Sky Q, I'd say it's more likely than not Sky Q will be a success even with a premium attached to it - the same way iPhones have premiums.

TAFKAlawhec

The Cush wrote: »

My thoughts on it ...

On the DS forum there was speculation that the LNB could be an SCR/Unicable type but this only requires a single cable from the LNB to feed multiple tuners by allocating a single block of frequency to each tuner and feeding the selected channel's freq/band/pol down that frequency block if I understand it correctly.

The new SkyQ box has 2 inputs and a full-band tuner (290-2340 MHz), no RF inputs so no conflicts with terrestrial frequencies within the box. The guess over on the DS forum it that the new LNB will be wideband (full-band 10.7 - 12.75 GHz), so no hi/lo band 22khz tone switching required at the LNB and that each cable will carry a separate polarisation (H or V) so no voltage switching required at the LNB.

Just like a terrestrial aerial signal (1 polarisation over the full band) can be easily split, this would allow the 2 raw LNB feeds (H wideband & V wideband) to the SkyQ receiver, to be split as many times as required within the box (kinda like an internal multiswitch).

This would be a problem for legacy sat receivers within the same installation but no doubt there will be a multiswitch or splitter solution made available from the various manufacturers.

The tuners are quoted as seeing over a bandwidth of 2050 MHz which does 10.7-12.75 GHz just fine. However with the upper limit being pushed up by 200 MHz I wonder if some longer feeds might be at a tipping point at the 12.5-12.75 GHz band - probably not as SES cleared all European broadcast services off this sub band earlier this year.

And while the lack of a UHF modulator means using < 900MHz frequencies for the LNB feeds being less problematic, I well remember back in the 90's complaints over Astra 1D causing interference to a significant amount of analogue terrestrial TV reception because of the 10 GHz LNB oscillator used at the time for reception downconverting to frequencies in the UHF band and leaking out on poorly-shielded downleads (despite the vision nominally being FM, on bad cases it was perfectly possible to watch some of the Astra 1D analogue stations in black & white without sound on an analogue UHF tuner). While almost every installation since the start of Sky Digital has mandated double-shielded copper foil downleads for the LNB feed, I know several where the downleads from analogue systems being replaced weren't - including my own parent's where the same cable for analogue & digital has been in place for over 20 years now!

I suspect that Sky's interest in taking a different approach to DVB-S reception is to avoid having to provide four feeds and four coax cables to these new Sky Q receivers and to allow to some extent for existing hardware like the dish & downleads to remain in place. 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). Also those who have multiswitch set ups in their homes will likely need a significant change in their routing. But I won't be surprised if during 2016 that someone produces a new LNB for Sky dishes which as well as including the two wideband H/V feeds for the Sky Q receiver, will have at least an additional two outputs for 'legacy' or standard 13/18V 22kHz tone band switching receivers (Triax?)

TAFKAlawhec

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?

The bee in the bonnet, rightly or wrongly, is over potential widespread interference caused by at least some PLT devices that are claimed to meet emission limits, but don't really. BT were told to recall a bunch of PLT adaptors they gave to customers several years ago over major interference they generated, sometimes up to 400 metres away. The perception in the UK regarding these is that Ofcom don't really seem to give much of a damn unfortunately unless significant disruption to xDSL services are happening - if your neighbours' PLT is rendering reception of a MW or LW station you like to listen to impossible, then tough.

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.

My limited knowledge on this appears to be that the general UK electrical system of having a "ring mains" appears to make PLT interference much more likely & widespread than those using a "star" distribution of power points like most of the Irish Republic does.

And to be fair, the RF interference caused by some electrical and electronic devices these days is pretty bad, cheap Chinese stuff like mobile phone/tablet chargers being among the worst with fake "CE" stickers on them that feed their interference back into the mains system. Sadly it seems that the authorities responsible in dealing with RF interference just don't care much any more unless there's a vested interest somewhere.

TAFKAlawhec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.