[Nobby]

Sky News mentioned that of those taking Stream, 80% are new customers who have never had Sky before

Since "new" customers usually get a discount, this doesn't seem that surprising. There will be some cases of another adult in the household signing up in their own name after their spouse, sibling, lodger or communal lover have cancelled the satellite subscription.

[Spencer]

Since "new" customers usually get a discount, this doesn't seem that surprising. There will be some cases of another adult in the household signing up in their own name after their spouse, sibling, lodger or communal lover have cancelled the satellite subscription.

I doubt that many people would do that, given the discounts and inducements Sky always offer as soon as you ask to cancel your subscription.

I think it’s more to do with Stream not really offering any significant new advantages over Sky Q, meaning there’s little reason for existing customers to switch.

[Keith]

Sky making significant lay offs, mainly in 'engineering' as streaming services become more popular.

www.lbc.co.uk 

Though it says about the operations department and engineers, the article seems to suggest it's the installation teams rather than broadcast engineers

I wouldn't be too surprised if the eventual successor to Sky Q is designed to work with either internet or satellite input. Maybe even using the satellite input as a fallback for when there's poor or no internet connectivity.

That way they can still offer a service to those who live in remote locations where internet is currently limited, whilst futureproofing the devices for if they decide to move more services to IP only. Given that Sky Q was launched in 2016 I imagine that some of the earlier devices may be nearing end of life, as well as quite a bit having changed since then. Worth noting that Sky Q boxes do apparently have an ethernet and Wi-Fi connections.

I wouldn't be too surprised if between now and 2028 some of the services currently available on satellite start to move to being delivered by IP only, to save on satellite costs. I imagine they'll want to migrate any remaining Sky+ (SD and HD) customers, and get them onto either Sky Stream or Sky Q. In terms of channels axing +1 channels on satellite will probably be coming soon, possibly still allowing them to be received via IP delivery.

[Former Member 237]

i'd be intrested to know how many new customers they are signing up.

[southern_boy]

I wouldn't be too surprised if the eventual successor to Sky Q is designed to work with either internet or satellite input. Maybe even using the satellite input as a fallback for when there's poor or no internet connectivity.

That way they can still offer a service to those who live in remote locations where internet is currently limited, whilst futureproofing the devices for if they decide to move more services to IP only. Given that Sky Q was launched in 2016 I imagine that some of the earlier devices may be nearing end of life, as well as quite a bit having changed since then. Worth noting that Sky Q boxes do apparently have an ethernet and Wi-Fi connections.

I wouldn't be too surprised if between now and 2028 some of the services currently available on satellite start to move to being delivered by IP only, to save on satellite costs. I imagine they'll want to migrate any remaining Sky+ (SD and HD) customers, and get them onto either Sky Stream or Sky Q. In terms of channels axing +1 channels on satellite will probably be coming soon, possibly still allowing them to be received via IP delivery.

Still offering services over satellite would remove any benefit to Sky of moving people to IP though. Once Sky has paid for the signals to sit on the satellite, it costs them the same if 1 person or 1 million people have their mini-dishes pointed at it. The only time Sky makes a real saving is when they remove channels from satellite completely. That being said, they could offer a FTA backup for satellite, like they currently do for DTT.

[Stooky Bill]

For them it's a case of judging when enough of the population have an Internet connection that's decent and reliable nough to rely on for their services. Going IP brings them customers that couldn't previously subscribe, particularly in rural areas, but going only IP cuts off others

[Jon]

Couldn’t they use a satellite internet service in those small examples where that’s the only option?

[i.h]

Couldn’t they use a satellite internet service in those small examples where that’s the only option?

they could, but that's immensely inefficient compared to a broadcast platform (for as long as there are enough customers to make broadcast worthwhile) and a terrible use of limited capacity. User experience is also likely to be poorer as satellite congestion rears its head.

an ever increasing number of people in the UK can access superfast or ultrafast internet via copper or fibre, however. Ofcom's own statistics say 97% of the population can get superfast, ie 30Mbps or higher.

by the time Sky's satellite contracts expire I'd expect they could reach anyone worth serving via FTTP.

[London Lite]

FTTC and FTTP have made it easier for most town and city households to receive at least 30Mbps. There's an estate not too far from me which for decades was stuck on very slow ADSL speeds up to 6Mbps which is below the minimum speed guarantee.

They now have a choice of FTTC up to 60Mbps and FTTP up to 300Mbps from Openreach and two Altnet providers in Hyperoptic and Community Fibre, the latter offering speeds up to 3Gbps.

That residential area now does better than me. Where Openreach offer up to G.Fast, but we also have the two Altnets.

[harshy]

I just think broadcast pictures via satellite are better then over anything over IP, it’s getting there just not quite though and I am sure anything over IP has a delay as well.