You assume that they will always use satellite as a primary delivery method, we're trying to say that as a major ISP they could easily consider IP moving forward. Especially now that BT's FTTC/FTTP networks are available to large amounts of the population, well exceeding Virgin cable. I remember the posts from 10 years ago about how cable TV would always be superior as they have the return path and VOD and Sky never will.
It is a lot easier to run 4K over a network that they own and control, than fixing any capacity issues that they may hit. over a satellite cluster that they rent from a third party
Satellite (and in the wider scheme traditional broadcast) will almost always make sense for use as a primary delivery method for content that is tended to be watched live in real-time (i.e. sport, elections, televised concerts etc.) or that attracts a lot of viewers (drama, movie premieres), or that is otherwise bandwidth intensive (such as 4K will be).
I'd instead see Sky in a few years moving towards a hybrid broadcast/multicast approach whereby the most demanded bouquet of channels are broadcast over the air, the rest is multicast to viewers as they request it.
YouView already operates on this principle albeit on a smaller scale to Sky's content selection, combining FreeView over-the-air and IP streaming over-the-top.
So I have recently got a 4K TV which looks fantastic and works great with 4K content on Netflix.
I know it is rumoured but I just wanted to find out if there was any official word on 4K coming to Sky any time soon? Do we think there may have to be a different kind of dish or box in order for it to work?
I just wanted to create a discussion to hear your views. Anybody else in the same boat? :kitty:
Do we know what dizzydjc actually has? The last Samsung and LG's I looked at, stated categorically that they'd future proofed their TV and the firmware can be upgradable for when standards are agreed.
I'm a bit confused but looking at the likely SoC (System on a Chip) that Sky are likely to use, will include HEVC. This on the assumption that prior to them merging all Eurpoean Sky's, Sky Germany completed a public deal with ViXS.
Do we know what dizzydjc actually has? The last Samsung and LG's I looked at, stated categorically that they'd future proofed their TV and the firmware can be upgradable for when standards are agreed.
I'm a bit confused but looking at the likely SoC (System on a Chip) that Sky are likely to use, will include HEVC. This on the assumption that prior to them merging all Eurpoean Sky's, Sky Germany completed a public deal with ViXS.
The likely emmission standard will require 10 bits per luminance pixel ....
Most current panels are only 8 bit .....
Although I note the sharp "8k" shown at CES says it has a 12 bit panel ...
It looks likely that sport will use 100/120 frames a second
This is a video data rate of 16 or20 Gbit/sec at 422 sampling ... UHD1
I don't think HDMI can do this yet
and unless one was shown at CES there are NO panels that can display BT2020 Gamut
(or cameras that can capture it)
There are a lot of things where the detailed standards Need to be defined and agreed....
Like OETF and EOTF.
And the profiles that broadcasters will use also agreed ......
Both for emmission and in thier systems so that they can build them with equipment that interoperates....
That's why I pointed out the UK SMPTE seminar
see https://www.smpte.org/sections/united-kingdom for more details
You might like to look at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrNhWcjW4c
things have moved in the past 18 months since that - and Standards are being published frequently....
But the fundamental need for HDR HFR Wider Gamut and then static resolution has not Changed
Yet they're pushing their subscribers to becoming 'connected'. And it's working, over 6m homes now connected, more movies are watched on demand than on the linear channels and average number of monthly downloads per connected home has increased 39% in the last year.
OK, not live and not 4k, but it's a trend.
So at their previous results announcement, Sky get asked regularly - are you going to go IP(this is for HD and I'd expect 4K when it comes). The answer is always, why should we use IP and the associated increased costs for bandwith when we can have fixed bandwith costs and reach 98% of the UK with the broadcast. As we know, 4K will use a lot of bandwith, so it makes sense to continue with Sat broadcast.
The likely emmission standard will require 10 bits per luminance pixel ....
Most current panels are only 8 bit .....
Although I note the sharp "8k" shown at CES says it has a 12 bit panel ...
It looks likely that sport will use 100/120 frames a second
This is a video data rate of 16 or20 Gbit/sec at 422 sampling ... UHD1
I don't think HDMI can do this yet
and unless one was shown at CES there are NO panels that can display BT2020 Gamut
(or cameras that can capture it)
There are a lot of things where the detailed standards Need to be defined and agreed....
Like OETF and EOTF.
And the profiles that broadcasters will use also agreed ......
Both for emmission and in thier systems so that they can build them with equipment that interoperates....
That's why I pointed out the UK SMPTE seminar
see https://www.smpte.org/sections/united-kingdom for more details
You might like to look at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrNhWcjW4c
things have moved in the past 18 months since that - and Standards are being published frequently....
But the fundamental need for HDR HFR Wider Gamut and then static resolution has not Changed
OK, you've stated pretty much the same as the post I'd quoted but we don't know what TV the OP has. Or do we, from another thread??
Just before Christmas I bought a 55inch Curved Samsung UHDTV and a curved soundbar and I have to say I am very happy with my purchase. 4K content from Netflx looks stunning on it and I have to say that non 4K content looks fantastic as well. Samsung were giving away a UHDTV box that makes your tv future proof so it's good to have that as well. Also there are some movies on it in UHD which look awesome. So anyone considering a 4K tv purchase I would say now is the time. You certainly won't regret it. So let's see what Sky have to bring to the 4K party.
Which model was is that you bought methodguy? I should quantify my question - I'm not being nosey, it's just that I had 'amost' decided on a Samsung UE55HU7200 which allows you to re-engineer the firmware. I didn't buy as was looking to see what CES brought about.
These topics will be funny to read in 5 years time when so much of TV is delivered via IP rather than satellite or terrestrially
Most landline/cable based ISP's offer truly unlimited internet and so the huge data required for 4K won't be an issue in that respect, suitable speeds and the infrastructure being able to cope with millions of users all viewing 4K might be though.
These topics will be funny to read in 5 years time when so much of TV is delivered via IP rather than satellite or terrestrially
Not really, most TV will still be broadcast terrestrially, via satellite, or via cable - as now, and for exactly the same reasons.
There may be more people downloading programmes, particularly films (more of a threat to DVD/BD than broadcast TV) - but broadcasting will still the main format, with catch-up probably the main IPTV format?.
Satellite (and in the wider scheme traditional broadcast) will almost always make sense for use as a primary delivery method for content that is tended to be watched live in real-time (i.e. sport, elections, televised concerts etc.) or that attracts a lot of viewers (drama, movie premieres), or that is otherwise bandwidth intensive (such as 4K will be).
I'd instead see Sky in a few years moving towards a hybrid broadcast/multicast approach whereby the most demanded bouquet of channels are broadcast over the air, the rest is multicast to viewers as they request it.
YouView already operates on this principle albeit on a smaller scale to Sky's content selection, combining FreeView over-the-air and IP streaming over-the-top.
You seem to be describing the sort of case that IP multicast is designed to handle - i.e. many viewers watching the exact same channel, and the fact that it is multicast drastically reduces the network load (minimal duplication, data only flows to where it is needed).
This is an area that some US cable operators have moved towards - not with IP (yet), but with traditional cable modulation. Instead of dedicating some bandwidth to each channel, they have capacity that can be assigned to any channel at any time in each area served by a node. If someone in the area requests a channel, it gets put onto one of the spare channels and the box is told how to tune to it. If someone else wants to watch it, they get the info too. Every so often the boxes ask the viewer if they are still watching, and if not the channel is closed and the bandwidth released. The popular channels are not treated like this, they get dedicated transmission capacity 24/7.
It's a cheap way to be able to add more channels without needing to find more RF capacity (especially with the increasing demands for capacity for cable modems). The plan appears to make the TV IP-based too, and being able to use all of the cable network for cable modems (or TV boxes with built in modems).
IP multicast sort of makes more sense than traditional broadcasting - you're not wasting expensive, precious satellite capacity on stuff no one is watching, and new channels will probably find it a lot cheaper to go over IP than satellite.
These topics will be funny to read in 5 years time when so much of TV is delivered via IP rather than satellite or terrestrially
Most landline/cable based ISP's offer truly unlimited internet and so the huge data required for 4K won't be an issue in that respect, suitable speeds and the infrastructure being able to cope with millions of users all viewing 4K might be though.
It would probably depend on if the ISPs co-operate on some unified TV platform, rather than BT/TalkTalk/Sky/etc all going down separate routes and requiring their internet connection to have their service. I have no intention of moving to Sky to get Sky TV, but may consider if it I could get it over my existing ISP.
Sort of like how all ISPs have direct connections to the BBC to make iPlayer run smoothly and without overloading parts of each other's network
Not really, most TV will still be broadcast terrestrially, via satellite, or via cable - as now, and for exactly the same reasons.
There may be more people downloading programmes, particularly films (more of a threat to DVD/BD than broadcast TV) - but broadcasting will still the main format, with catch-up probably the main IPTV format?.
Yes I know that's your belief from previous posts and was mine until not so long ago, I don't doubt satellite and terrestrial will still play a large part but clearly many more people now download and watch at their own time on their phone, tablet or PC rather than connect to the main TV and Skybox. It can only continue this way, more downloads to view and less tradtional methods.
Anyway, will be interesting changing times ahead.... it's hard to really predict this sort of thing, who on earth back in the mid 1990's have thought we'd be able to view thousands of TV programmes / films and millions of music tracks on our phones, computers and such like!
Yes I know that's your belief from previous posts and was mine until not so long ago, I don't doubt satellite and terrestrial will still play a large part but clearly many more people now download and watch at their own time on their phone, tablet or PC rather than connect to the main TV and Skybox. It can only continue this way, more downloads to view and less tradtional methods.
That's were your argument falls down - while downloading individual programmes (mostly as catchup, or films - rather than buying DVD's) conventional broadcasting (particularly via satellite) isn't likely to decrease.
It's far cheaper and much more cost effective to broadcast (again, particularly via satellite) than to do IPTV - and vastly cheaper for the customer
It's far cheaper and much more cost effective to broadcast (again, particularly via satellite) than to do IPTV - and vastly cheaper for the customer
Not sure how this is necessarily true. Satellite capacity, uplinks and the works aren't cheap at all.
With IPTV the ISPs/content providers have the advantage that a large amount of the distribution is already paid for through internet subscriptions - and the extra cost of adding IPTV onto the existing network is likely to be much smaller.
Not sure how this is necessarily true. Satellite capacity, uplinks and the works aren't cheap at all.
In broadcasting terms it's extremely cheap, a small fraction of the terrestrial costs.
A number of years ago I had dealings with the guy at the BBC in charge of their dealings with BSkyB - it was back in the Solus card days, and I provided some technical support for him (he knew nothing about satellite, or how BSkyB worked).
However, one thing he DID know was the costs involved, and he told me it was the cheapest broadcasting the BBC had ever done - by a LONG way
How do you think some really minor channels have ever managed to launch on digital satellite?, it's because it's so low cost (relatively).
Not sure how this is necessarily true. Satellite capacity, uplinks and the works aren't cheap at all.
.
But neither are CDNs .....
And what ever the ISPs may charge the broadcasters to access the networks or up the price to recover the costs of multicast infrastructure ..
In broadcasting terms it's extremely cheap, a small fraction of the terrestrial costs.
A number of years ago I had dealings with the guy at the BBC in charge of their dealings with BSkyB - it was back in the Solus card days, and I provided some technical support for him (he knew nothing about satellite, or how BSkyB worked).
However, one thing he DID know was the costs involved, and he told me it was the cheapest broadcasting the BBC had ever done - by a LONG way
How do you think some really minor channels have ever managed to launch on digital satellite?, it's because it's so low cost (relatively).
So what you're saying is that you're using extremely outdated hearsay to make an argument.
I think it's safe to say that the costs of running IP networks have dropped massively in the what, 13 years since the BBC stopped using Sky's encryption?
But neither are CDNs .....
And what ever the ISPs may charge the broadcasters to access the networks or up the price to recover the costs of multicast infrastructure ..
And has IP delivery got the many nines reliability that the through the air methods have... And we as viewers expect.
Does the BBC actually pay ISPs? https://support.bbc.co.uk/support/peering/ implies that they do settlement free peering, so presumably the 12% covers the BBC's own IP network and not so much in paying off ISPs, and while it may only have 2% of viewers, it also is the BBC's own internet connectivity (?) and also allows bbc.co.uk to exist (which I guess is quite a popular site?)
The large ISPs already use multicast for their own TV platforms, so adding the BBC and other broadcasters wouldn't be a huge costly obstacle. I presume also that the ISPs that were involved in the BBC multicast trial 10+ years ago didn't require the BBC to pay for multicast to be enabled on their networks?
(and of course, this is forgetting that we're talking about the likes of Sky using their own IP network to deliver their TV service)
I haven't seen a major ISP have a large-scale outage for some time (and it's not impossible for transmitters, uplink sites or even the satellites to have a significant failure) - and while individual lines can have issues, so can a dodgy aerial or satellite dish.
Telco-grade networking kit is usually designed and sold on the basis of five-nines reliability, and any competent ISP isn't going to have many single points of failure
See India's SkyTata service is beginning 4K for cricket. Orders being taken for new STBs. Guess our Sky might be taking a gander at the service to learn something?
So at their previous results announcement, Sky get asked regularly - are you going to go IP(this is for HD and I'd expect 4K when it comes). The answer is always, why should we use IP and the associated increased costs for bandwith when we can have fixed bandwith costs and reach 98% of the UK with the broadcast. As we know, 4K will use a lot of bandwith, so it makes sense to continue with Sat broadcast.
These topics will be funny to read in 5 years time when so much of TV is delivered via IP rather than satellite or terrestrially
Most landline/cable based ISP's offer truly unlimited internet and so the huge data required for 4K won't be an issue in that respect, suitable speeds and the infrastructure being able to cope with millions of users all viewing 4K might be though.
I think if broadcasters switch to IP TV then you'll likely see civil unrest in this country with broadcasters being the targets of large scale protests or worse.
I make the prediction simply because IP tv has one fundamental failing and that is the need for someone to have unlimited fibre broadband in order to access it, especially with the switch to 4K / 8K.
Fine in theory, but what a lot of well healed viewers tend to forget is there's a majority in this country who can't afford to pay for an unlimited fibre service. In fact, there are quite a lot of people who can't afford BB at all, or only a very basic limited speed / download service eg pensioners, the unemployed, those on low income / minimum wage etc.
That's where IP TV falls down. It can't reach the whole audience, only those that can afford to pay and as such it becomes Pay TV by the back door.
Onto that, add the fact that the internet is very unreliable, and any outage means you lose not just your PC but your tv as well, leaving you no entertainment until it's fixed, and you have major issues.
The only advantage to IP tv is it's easier to engineer the bandwidth down a cable than over the air, especially as insufficient bandwidth in space = new satellite needed.
If IP tv is to succeed then a no cost model will have to come forwards in which the BBC Licence Fee pays for the fibre BB. However, this is unlikely as this would either then leave the BBC unfunded and IP providers providing unlimited fibre broadband & phone for around £12 per month all in (£140 licence fee divided by 12 months), or there would have to be huge rise in the Licence Fee to probably £600+, which would equal Pay TV once more and take tv away from the masses. Something again which would be likely to cause civic unrest.
I agree with others on here that the future for IP tv lies in catchup services.
I think if broadcasters switch to IP TV then you'll likely see civil unrest in this country with broadcasters being the targets of large scale protests or worse.
I make the prediction simply because IP tv has one fundamental failing and that is the need for someone to have unlimited fibre broadband in order to access it, especially with the switch to 4K / 8K.
Fine in theory, but what a lot of well healed viewers tend to forget is there's a majority in this country who can't afford to pay for an unlimited fibre service. In fact, there are quite a lot of people who can't afford BB at all, or only a very basic limited speed / download service eg pensioners, the unemployed, those on low income / minimum wage etc.
That's where IP TV falls down. It can't reach the whole audience, only those that can afford to pay and as such it becomes Pay TV by the back door.
Onto that, add the fact that the internet is very unreliable, and any outage means you lose not just your PC but your tv as well, leaving you no entertainment until it's fixed, and you have major issues.
The only advantage to IP tv is it's easier to engineer the bandwidth down a cable than over the air, especially as insufficient bandwidth in space = new satellite needed.
If IP tv is to succeed then a no cost model will have to come forwards in which the BBC Licence Fee pays for the fibre BB. However, this is unlikely as this would either then leave the BBC unfunded and IP providers providing unlimited fibre broadband & phone for around £12 per month all in (£140 licence fee divided by 12 months), or there would have to be huge rise in the Licence Fee to probably £600+, which would equal Pay TV once more and take tv away from the masses. Something again which would be likely to cause civic unrest.
I agree with others on here that the future for IP tv lies in catchup services.
None of this takes into account the actual price differences involved or that an ISP could conceivably ensure that any IPTV service doesn't count for the purpose of any usage limit. You also appear to assume that IPTV will totally replace every other transmission medium in the short term, not sure where that came from. That certainly wouldn't happen unless 100% of the population (or at least the 99.999999999999999999999999999% that can get satellite and/or terrestrial) have a decent internet service.
Remember that this thread is about Sky doing 4K. Sky could very easily make a Sky IPTV service on Sky's network not fall foul of any usage limit - and if you can afford Sky in the first place, you can probably afford to have a slightly better internet connection
Besides, we're not talking about doing it tomorrow, but in the future. Who is to say that in a few years' time no ISP will bother with usage caps? We've already moved forward from a few years ago where truly unlimited services were not available to a lot of people (and not at a sensible price).
Not sure why you think the internet is "very" unreliable. The few internet connections I have had responsibility over have been very reliable with no significant outages in years. Maybe individual lines can have trouble, but then, so can a satellite dish or an aerial.
None of this takes into account the actual price differences involved or that an ISP could conceivably ensure that any IPTV service doesn't count for the purpose of any usage limit. You also appear to assume that IPTV will totally replace every other transmission medium in the short term, not sure where that came from. That certainly wouldn't happen unless 100% of the population (or at least the 99.999999999999999999999999999% that can get satellite and/or terrestrial) have a decent internet service.
Remember that this thread is about Sky doing 4K. Sky could very easily make a Sky IPTV service on Sky's network not fall foul of any usage limit - and if you can afford Sky in the first place, you can probably afford to have a slightly better internet connection
Besides, we're not talking about doing it tomorrow, but in the future. Who is to say that in a few years' time no ISP will bother with usage caps? We've already moved forward from a few years ago where truly unlimited services were not available to a lot of people (and not at a sensible price).
Not sure why you think the internet is "very" unreliable. The few internet connections I have had responsibility over have been very reliable with no significant outages in years. Maybe individual lines can have trouble, but then, so can a satellite dish or an aerial.
In short, you appear to be exaggerating a bit
Unless the cabling to / from exchanges and houses are all upgraded, then I cannot really see how you can pay for a better connection ? I get 1.5MB, I could pay £50 pm but still get 1.5MB and when I enquire about installation of fibre etc, get the same response, there are no plans now, nor in the future to upgrade any exchange in this area.
Unless the cabling to / from exchanges and houses are all upgraded, then I cannot really see how you can pay for a better connection ? I get 1.5MB, I could pay £50 pm but still get 1.5MB and when I enquire about installation of fibre etc, get the same response, there are no plans now, nor in the future to upgrade any exchange in this area.
All of the UK is undergoing upgrade work to give a very high percentage of people something better.
I went from 8Mbps to 40Mbps (and now about 75Mbps) about 3 years ago, and most people in the county I live in are in the same boat. I live in a small village in Cornwall and was one of the last to get ADSL in 2005
All of the UK is undergoing upgrade work to give a very high percentage of people something better.
The operative words being 'something better' - with a good percentage still going to be pretty poor, and your 'high' percentage not really that high either - certainly well below satellite or terrestrial coverage.
The operative words being 'something better' - with a good percentage still going to be pretty poor, and your 'high' percentage not really that high either - certainly well below satellite or terrestrial coverage.
That remains to be seen. FTTC is not ideal (although it will generally work for IPTV), but a lot of people will see dramatic improvements, and in the future (given that we're not talking about doing IPTV tomorrow) fibre to the premises will hopefully become more and more widespread anyway.
Counties like Cornwall appear to be going for 99% superfast coverage using a mix of FTTC/FTTP/FTTrn (with at least a quarter on FTTP), and it's certainly not one of the easiest counties to do that in (especially with the Isles of Scilly being part of the project too)
Comments
I'd instead see Sky in a few years moving towards a hybrid broadcast/multicast approach whereby the most demanded bouquet of channels are broadcast over the air, the rest is multicast to viewers as they request it.
YouView already operates on this principle albeit on a smaller scale to Sky's content selection, combining FreeView over-the-air and IP streaming over-the-top.
Kings New Clothes Syndrome
Do we know what dizzydjc actually has? The last Samsung and LG's I looked at, stated categorically that they'd future proofed their TV and the firmware can be upgradable for when standards are agreed.
I'm a bit confused but looking at the likely SoC (System on a Chip) that Sky are likely to use, will include HEVC. This on the assumption that prior to them merging all Eurpoean Sky's, Sky Germany completed a public deal with ViXS.
The likely emmission standard will require 10 bits per luminance pixel ....
Most current panels are only 8 bit .....
Although I note the sharp "8k" shown at CES says it has a 12 bit panel ...
It looks likely that sport will use 100/120 frames a second
This is a video data rate of 16 or20 Gbit/sec at 422 sampling ... UHD1
I don't think HDMI can do this yet
and unless one was shown at CES there are NO panels that can display BT2020 Gamut
(or cameras that can capture it)
There are a lot of things where the detailed standards Need to be defined and agreed....
Like OETF and EOTF.
And the profiles that broadcasters will use also agreed ......
Both for emmission and in thier systems so that they can build them with equipment that interoperates....
That's why I pointed out the UK SMPTE seminar
see https://www.smpte.org/sections/united-kingdom for more details
You might like to look at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrNhWcjW4c
things have moved in the past 18 months since that - and Standards are being published frequently....
But the fundamental need for HDR HFR Wider Gamut and then static resolution has not Changed
So at their previous results announcement, Sky get asked regularly - are you going to go IP(this is for HD and I'd expect 4K when it comes). The answer is always, why should we use IP and the associated increased costs for bandwith when we can have fixed bandwith costs and reach 98% of the UK with the broadcast. As we know, 4K will use a lot of bandwith, so it makes sense to continue with Sat broadcast.
OK, you've stated pretty much the same as the post I'd quoted but we don't know what TV the OP has. Or do we, from another thread??
Here's the SoC that I was referring to... http://investor.vixs.com/investor-relations/press-releases/press-release-details/2014/ViXS-XCode-6400-Powers-Worlds-First-4K-Ultra-HD-Live-Broadcast-by-Sky-Deutschland/default.aspx As they seem to intend on reducing their R&D costs across the group, it's likely Sky here will use the same or one from the same range.
Cheers fo the links.
Which model was is that you bought methodguy? I should quantify my question - I'm not being nosey, it's just that I had 'amost' decided on a Samsung UE55HU7200 which allows you to re-engineer the firmware. I didn't buy as was looking to see what CES brought about.
Most landline/cable based ISP's offer truly unlimited internet and so the huge data required for 4K won't be an issue in that respect, suitable speeds and the infrastructure being able to cope with millions of users all viewing 4K might be though.
Not really, most TV will still be broadcast terrestrially, via satellite, or via cable - as now, and for exactly the same reasons.
There may be more people downloading programmes, particularly films (more of a threat to DVD/BD than broadcast TV) - but broadcasting will still the main format, with catch-up probably the main IPTV format?.
You seem to be describing the sort of case that IP multicast is designed to handle - i.e. many viewers watching the exact same channel, and the fact that it is multicast drastically reduces the network load (minimal duplication, data only flows to where it is needed).
This is an area that some US cable operators have moved towards - not with IP (yet), but with traditional cable modulation. Instead of dedicating some bandwidth to each channel, they have capacity that can be assigned to any channel at any time in each area served by a node. If someone in the area requests a channel, it gets put onto one of the spare channels and the box is told how to tune to it. If someone else wants to watch it, they get the info too. Every so often the boxes ask the viewer if they are still watching, and if not the channel is closed and the bandwidth released. The popular channels are not treated like this, they get dedicated transmission capacity 24/7.
It's a cheap way to be able to add more channels without needing to find more RF capacity (especially with the increasing demands for capacity for cable modems). The plan appears to make the TV IP-based too, and being able to use all of the cable network for cable modems (or TV boxes with built in modems).
IP multicast sort of makes more sense than traditional broadcasting - you're not wasting expensive, precious satellite capacity on stuff no one is watching, and new channels will probably find it a lot cheaper to go over IP than satellite.
It would probably depend on if the ISPs co-operate on some unified TV platform, rather than BT/TalkTalk/Sky/etc all going down separate routes and requiring their internet connection to have their service. I have no intention of moving to Sky to get Sky TV, but may consider if it I could get it over my existing ISP.
Sort of like how all ISPs have direct connections to the BBC to make iPlayer run smoothly and without overloading parts of each other's network
Yes I know that's your belief from previous posts and was mine until not so long ago, I don't doubt satellite and terrestrial will still play a large part but clearly many more people now download and watch at their own time on their phone, tablet or PC rather than connect to the main TV and Skybox. It can only continue this way, more downloads to view and less tradtional methods.
Anyway, will be interesting changing times ahead.... it's hard to really predict this sort of thing, who on earth back in the mid 1990's have thought we'd be able to view thousands of TV programmes / films and millions of music tracks on our phones, computers and such like!
56kbps seemed 'fast enough' back then
That's were your argument falls down - while downloading individual programmes (mostly as catchup, or films - rather than buying DVD's) conventional broadcasting (particularly via satellite) isn't likely to decrease.
It's far cheaper and much more cost effective to broadcast (again, particularly via satellite) than to do IPTV - and vastly cheaper for the customer
I think considering where we were 5 years ago with IP supplied TV, things will move on much much faster in the next 5.
See you then!
Not sure how this is necessarily true. Satellite capacity, uplinks and the works aren't cheap at all.
With IPTV the ISPs/content providers have the advantage that a large amount of the distribution is already paid for through internet subscriptions - and the extra cost of adding IPTV onto the existing network is likely to be much smaller.
In broadcasting terms it's extremely cheap, a small fraction of the terrestrial costs.
A number of years ago I had dealings with the guy at the BBC in charge of their dealings with BSkyB - it was back in the Solus card days, and I provided some technical support for him (he knew nothing about satellite, or how BSkyB worked).
However, one thing he DID know was the costs involved, and he told me it was the cheapest broadcasting the BBC had ever done - by a LONG way
How do you think some really minor channels have ever managed to launch on digital satellite?, it's because it's so low cost (relatively).
But neither are CDNs .....
And what ever the ISPs may charge the broadcasters to access the networks or up the price to recover the costs of multicast infrastructure ..
At the moment the BBC pays 12% of its distribution budget on IP delivery for 2% of viewers to enjoy ..... http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/vfm/distribution.pdf
And has IP delivery got the many nines reliability that the through the air methods have... And we as viewers expect.
So what you're saying is that you're using extremely outdated hearsay to make an argument.
I think it's safe to say that the costs of running IP networks have dropped massively in the what, 13 years since the BBC stopped using Sky's encryption?
Does the BBC actually pay ISPs? https://support.bbc.co.uk/support/peering/ implies that they do settlement free peering, so presumably the 12% covers the BBC's own IP network and not so much in paying off ISPs, and while it may only have 2% of viewers, it also is the BBC's own internet connectivity (?) and also allows bbc.co.uk to exist (which I guess is quite a popular site?)
The large ISPs already use multicast for their own TV platforms, so adding the BBC and other broadcasters wouldn't be a huge costly obstacle. I presume also that the ISPs that were involved in the BBC multicast trial 10+ years ago didn't require the BBC to pay for multicast to be enabled on their networks?
(and of course, this is forgetting that we're talking about the likes of Sky using their own IP network to deliver their TV service)
I haven't seen a major ISP have a large-scale outage for some time (and it's not impossible for transmitters, uplink sites or even the satellites to have a significant failure) - and while individual lines can have issues, so can a dodgy aerial or satellite dish.
Telco-grade networking kit is usually designed and sold on the basis of five-nines reliability, and any competent ISP isn't going to have many single points of failure
I think if broadcasters switch to IP TV then you'll likely see civil unrest in this country with broadcasters being the targets of large scale protests or worse.
I make the prediction simply because IP tv has one fundamental failing and that is the need for someone to have unlimited fibre broadband in order to access it, especially with the switch to 4K / 8K.
Fine in theory, but what a lot of well healed viewers tend to forget is there's a majority in this country who can't afford to pay for an unlimited fibre service. In fact, there are quite a lot of people who can't afford BB at all, or only a very basic limited speed / download service eg pensioners, the unemployed, those on low income / minimum wage etc.
That's where IP TV falls down. It can't reach the whole audience, only those that can afford to pay and as such it becomes Pay TV by the back door.
Onto that, add the fact that the internet is very unreliable, and any outage means you lose not just your PC but your tv as well, leaving you no entertainment until it's fixed, and you have major issues.
The only advantage to IP tv is it's easier to engineer the bandwidth down a cable than over the air, especially as insufficient bandwidth in space = new satellite needed.
If IP tv is to succeed then a no cost model will have to come forwards in which the BBC Licence Fee pays for the fibre BB. However, this is unlikely as this would either then leave the BBC unfunded and IP providers providing unlimited fibre broadband & phone for around £12 per month all in (£140 licence fee divided by 12 months), or there would have to be huge rise in the Licence Fee to probably £600+, which would equal Pay TV once more and take tv away from the masses. Something again which would be likely to cause civic unrest.
I agree with others on here that the future for IP tv lies in catchup services.
None of this takes into account the actual price differences involved or that an ISP could conceivably ensure that any IPTV service doesn't count for the purpose of any usage limit. You also appear to assume that IPTV will totally replace every other transmission medium in the short term, not sure where that came from. That certainly wouldn't happen unless 100% of the population (or at least the 99.999999999999999999999999999% that can get satellite and/or terrestrial) have a decent internet service.
Remember that this thread is about Sky doing 4K. Sky could very easily make a Sky IPTV service on Sky's network not fall foul of any usage limit - and if you can afford Sky in the first place, you can probably afford to have a slightly better internet connection
Besides, we're not talking about doing it tomorrow, but in the future. Who is to say that in a few years' time no ISP will bother with usage caps? We've already moved forward from a few years ago where truly unlimited services were not available to a lot of people (and not at a sensible price).
Not sure why you think the internet is "very" unreliable. The few internet connections I have had responsibility over have been very reliable with no significant outages in years. Maybe individual lines can have trouble, but then, so can a satellite dish or an aerial.
In short, you appear to be exaggerating a bit
Unless the cabling to / from exchanges and houses are all upgraded, then I cannot really see how you can pay for a better connection ? I get 1.5MB, I could pay £50 pm but still get 1.5MB and when I enquire about installation of fibre etc, get the same response, there are no plans now, nor in the future to upgrade any exchange in this area.
All of the UK is undergoing upgrade work to give a very high percentage of people something better.
I went from 8Mbps to 40Mbps (and now about 75Mbps) about 3 years ago, and most people in the county I live in are in the same boat. I live in a small village in Cornwall and was one of the last to get ADSL in 2005
Where is "this area"?
The operative words being 'something better' - with a good percentage still going to be pretty poor, and your 'high' percentage not really that high either - certainly well below satellite or terrestrial coverage.
That remains to be seen. FTTC is not ideal (although it will generally work for IPTV), but a lot of people will see dramatic improvements, and in the future (given that we're not talking about doing IPTV tomorrow) fibre to the premises will hopefully become more and more widespread anyway.
Counties like Cornwall appear to be going for 99% superfast coverage using a mix of FTTC/FTTP/FTTrn (with at least a quarter on FTTP), and it's certainly not one of the easiest counties to do that in (especially with the Isles of Scilly being part of the project too)