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.
Yet you keep claiming TV broadcasting will be all but replaced by it in only five years time?.
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)
Not a good example at all - as Cornwall was chosen to have 'money thrown at it', in order to see what 'could' be done, there's no plans for the experiment to be repeated elsewhere due the huge non-economic aspects of it.
Not a good example at all - as Cornwall was chosen to have 'money thrown at it', in order to see what 'could' be done, there's no plans for the experiment to be repeated elsewhere due the huge non-economic aspects of it.
Cornwall is not unique, although it is ahead of the curve because it had a headstart. The whole country is getting improvements, whether through BDUK, or through separate projects (Cornwall/NI). But the key point is the same - FTTC to most users with some FTTP and FTTrn for the more remote
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
I appreciate this is a Sky 4K thread and to that end, most Sky subscribers can afford fibre.
However, I think when you look at a wider picture, then I don't believe it is a wider exaggeration at all. After all, you're asking broadcasters to simulcast yet another medium. How can most broadcasters afford to do this? You have to remember that apart from internet bandwidth they need to invest in equipment and then people to man a server room 24/7, which means that if they transmit on fibre on Sky, something will probably have to give elsewhere and that may mean DTT or Sat.
OK, I think it's pretty clear that traditional broadcasting methods will remain for many years, IP won't be replacing regular TV transmissions for a very long time, if ever, but surely it's quite clear going by current trends that IP delivered TV will only increase year on year and 4K TV will very likely initially get pushed out via IP rather than satellite, cable or terrestrial...of course as it's only really Netflix that is touting it that would be why it's internet based this early on. But no doubt Sky will quite quickly release a new box capable of 4K and other such goodness, but I suspect it'll be a lot more smart, relying on IP delivery for additional 4K premium films and such like.
Yes the internet can be slow, can go wrong sometimes but it's a relatively new technology compared to satellite and terrestrial transmissions and yet it's proving quite adept at delivering new and advancing technologies at a much faster rate than any other medium.
I appreciate this is a Sky 4K thread and to that end, most Sky subscribers can afford fibre.
However, I think when you look at a wider picture, then I don't believe it is a wider exaggeration at all. After all, you're asking broadcasters to simulcast yet another medium. How can most broadcasters afford to do this? You have to remember that apart from internet bandwidth they need to invest in equipment and then people to man a server room 24/7, which means that if they transmit on fibre on Sky, something will probably have to give elsewhere and that may mean DTT or Sat.
I don't see why they would need to. Sky is reasonably unique in that the broadcasters tend to arrange their own carriage/uplink and simply pay Sky for the EPG position and encryption.
With Freeview, they don't transmit their own channels - they buy space on one of the multiplexes and then arrange to have their channel piped to where the multiplexing equipment is. Ditto satellite, I'm not sure which broadcasters actually handle the transmission too (except Sky?).
If you want to be on Virgin, then again, you get your channel to their premises and they do the rest.
And the same is true in other countries - for example both of the American equivalents of Sky own their satellites and do the uplinking.
In an IPTV world, this could be the same - e.g. a Sky IPTV solution could be as simple for the broadcasters as getting their channels to Sky, who will handle the actual distribution over their network.
The largest broadcasters like the BBC/ITV may have different needs (although they seem to handle being on Virgin without having to have total control), but the rest certainly don't
Imagine a Sky with no Satellites, no dishes, no set top boxes. Imagine a Sky that has been manouvering it's chess pieces for years. Now imagine Now Tv that is already on a majority of new devices not being called Now Tv anymore and being called Sky. Imagine that because you have a hd TV then you will watch sky in hd and if you have a 4k tv then you will watch content in 4k. Imagine how much sky would save by delivering it's product down bb/fibre. Imagine a man called Ethan . . .
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
The unified TV platform already exists and is in use by BT and Talk Talk. It's BT Wholesale's TV Connect and is available to all TV companies, including of course Sky. When a customer views a channel via their ISP's TV Connect product, the required bandwidth is lopped off from the rest of the customer's fibre (or broadband) connection, reducing the available Internet bandwidth, and has priority to ensure stability of TV service.
I can see IPTV growing rapidly in the next few years, but of course it won't replace satellite or traditional terrestrial TV for very many years if ever, just as satellite hasn't replaced traditional terrestrial TV.
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.
I am not sure but I think that is the model number of my television. It's the Samsung 55 inch curved one last years model I think and I have to say that I am very pleased with it. Also it goes very well with the curved soundbar.
It's not, really. The first geostationary comms satellite was launched in 1964, and the first message sent over the fledging ARPANET was in 1969.
I agree with you that IPTV won't replace broadcast TV for a long time, if ever, though.
Yeah I knew someone would point that out
What I was really was trying to say is that IP is the (relative) new kid on the block for delivery of media like audio and video, especially in the home environment, it's only really the last 10 years that networking in the average home has become the norm.... so it is a pretty new way to get TV for the average viewer, digitalspy tech nerds excepted of course,
I'm sure someone will point out that Baird had an analogue film based IP system back in 1928 with 7.1 sound
As there aren't any 4K boxes there wouldn't be much point yet
I would imagine though, assuming they do bring out a 4K box (which seems likely), that they will provide catch-up 4K as well as broadcast.
Why the need for a box, surely they could do a service like Netflix, providing the TV was HVEC compatible and the viewer had a minimum broadband speed of 15Mbps 4k streaming could be a possibility now.
Why the need for a box, surely they could do a service like Netflix, providing the TV was HVEC compatible and the viewer had a minimum broadband speed of 15Mbps 4k streaming could be a possibility now.
Exactly. Sky have very kindly given me fibre for a fiver a month, but I need to go to Netflix to watch 4K.
Missing a trick with the growing number of 4K TV owners.
Why the need for a box, surely they could do a service like Netflix, providing the TV was HVEC compatible and the viewer had a minimum broadband speed of 15Mbps 4k streaming could be a possibility now.
What a silly question
You will need a box because that's how Sky will deliver their service and their subscriptions - I wouldn't expect Sky to release any sort of service until their own boxes are ready.
Exactly. Sky have very kindly given me fibre for a fiver a month, but I need to go to Netflix to watch 4K.
Missing a trick with the growing number of 4K TV owners.
Hi Derek, Just to let you know that as well as Netflix Amazon Instant Prime have also now got 4K content. Some content is free and some of it they charge for but you can and keep content as well.
I would suggest that's VERY unlikely, assuming it ever did happen it's unlikely to be until well after 4K Sky boxes are available.
Yes, because Sky doesn't currently do streaming over IP to non-Sky hardware. Totally impossible.
If there's a large install base of 4K hardware they might well do it - it's cheaper than trying to push people onto new 4K STBs for the time being.
IIRC this is the way other TV operators like Comcast in the US are doing it - their cable network and cable STBs certainly can't do it right now, but if you have a Samsung TV and a Comcast internet connection they're offering some 4K content
You seem to often like to state that something is unlikely or impossible.
I like to think of myself as the 'voice of reason' as opposed to suggesting wild flights of fancy that have no real chance of happening
It doesn't take much common sense to know that it's EXTREMELY unlikely that Sky will launch a 4K streaming service on non-Sky hardware - particularly before they even launch their own boxes.
Not to mention that the tiny number of 4K sales (and despite what people here like to imagine it is very small) hardly justify doing it yet. As I've said many times though, 4K WILL grow, simply because panel production will go more and more 4K, until lower resolution sets won't be available any more.
You will need a box because that's how Sky will deliver their service and their subscriptions - I wouldn't expect Sky to release any sort of service until their own boxes are ready.
You're not on the same page, are you.
No one has said that streaming is going to be their preferred method of delivery, only that there wouldn't be a need for a 4k box if Sky opted for a 4k streaming service, it would be delivered like Netflix, which was what the OP was referring too.
You don't have a clue how their 4k service will pan out as much as the next man.
Comments
Yet you keep claiming TV broadcasting will be all but replaced by it in only five years time?.
Not a good example at all - as Cornwall was chosen to have 'money thrown at it', in order to see what 'could' be done, there's no plans for the experiment to be repeated elsewhere due the huge non-economic aspects of it.
Did I? Even so, 5 years can represent a lot of progress. In 2010 I had a capped 8Mbit connection and most people had worse. Now I don't.
Cornwall is not unique, although it is ahead of the curve because it had a headstart. The whole country is getting improvements, whether through BDUK, or through separate projects (Cornwall/NI). But the key point is the same - FTTC to most users with some FTTP and FTTrn for the more remote
I appreciate this is a Sky 4K thread and to that end, most Sky subscribers can afford fibre.
However, I think when you look at a wider picture, then I don't believe it is a wider exaggeration at all. After all, you're asking broadcasters to simulcast yet another medium. How can most broadcasters afford to do this? You have to remember that apart from internet bandwidth they need to invest in equipment and then people to man a server room 24/7, which means that if they transmit on fibre on Sky, something will probably have to give elsewhere and that may mean DTT or Sat.
OK, I think it's pretty clear that traditional broadcasting methods will remain for many years, IP won't be replacing regular TV transmissions for a very long time, if ever, but surely it's quite clear going by current trends that IP delivered TV will only increase year on year and 4K TV will very likely initially get pushed out via IP rather than satellite, cable or terrestrial...of course as it's only really Netflix that is touting it that would be why it's internet based this early on. But no doubt Sky will quite quickly release a new box capable of 4K and other such goodness, but I suspect it'll be a lot more smart, relying on IP delivery for additional 4K premium films and such like.
Yes the internet can be slow, can go wrong sometimes but it's a relatively new technology compared to satellite and terrestrial transmissions and yet it's proving quite adept at delivering new and advancing technologies at a much faster rate than any other medium.
I don't see why they would need to. Sky is reasonably unique in that the broadcasters tend to arrange their own carriage/uplink and simply pay Sky for the EPG position and encryption.
With Freeview, they don't transmit their own channels - they buy space on one of the multiplexes and then arrange to have their channel piped to where the multiplexing equipment is. Ditto satellite, I'm not sure which broadcasters actually handle the transmission too (except Sky?).
If you want to be on Virgin, then again, you get your channel to their premises and they do the rest.
And the same is true in other countries - for example both of the American equivalents of Sky own their satellites and do the uplinking.
In an IPTV world, this could be the same - e.g. a Sky IPTV solution could be as simple for the broadcasters as getting their channels to Sky, who will handle the actual distribution over their network.
The largest broadcasters like the BBC/ITV may have different needs (although they seem to handle being on Virgin without having to have total control), but the rest certainly don't
The unified TV platform already exists and is in use by BT and Talk Talk. It's BT Wholesale's TV Connect and is available to all TV companies, including of course Sky. When a customer views a channel via their ISP's TV Connect product, the required bandwidth is lopped off from the rest of the customer's fibre (or broadband) connection, reducing the available Internet bandwidth, and has priority to ensure stability of TV service.
I can see IPTV growing rapidly in the next few years, but of course it won't replace satellite or traditional terrestrial TV for very many years if ever, just as satellite hasn't replaced traditional terrestrial TV.
I am not sure but I think that is the model number of my television. It's the Samsung 55 inch curved one last years model I think and I have to say that I am very pleased with it. Also it goes very well with the curved soundbar.
I agree with you that IPTV won't replace broadcast TV for a long time, if ever, though.
Yeah I knew someone would point that out
What I was really was trying to say is that IP is the (relative) new kid on the block for delivery of media like audio and video, especially in the home environment, it's only really the last 10 years that networking in the average home has become the norm.... so it is a pretty new way to get TV for the average viewer, digitalspy tech nerds excepted of course,
I'm sure someone will point out that Baird had an analogue film based IP system back in 1928 with 7.1 sound
Would be great to see all the Attenborough 3D docs which were natively shot in 4K.
As there aren't any 4K boxes there wouldn't be much point yet
I would imagine though, assuming they do bring out a 4K box (which seems likely), that they will provide catch-up 4K as well as broadcast.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00KSAL92U/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B00KSAL92U&linkCode=as2&tag=coolwebhome-21&linkId=6EOFXOEL2CJUGAKQ
Why the need for a box, surely they could do a service like Netflix, providing the TV was HVEC compatible and the viewer had a minimum broadband speed of 15Mbps 4k streaming could be a possibility now.
Exactly. Sky have very kindly given me fibre for a fiver a month, but I need to go to Netflix to watch 4K.
Missing a trick with the growing number of 4K TV owners.
That's not a Sky box
What a silly question
You will need a box because that's how Sky will deliver their service and their subscriptions - I wouldn't expect Sky to release any sort of service until their own boxes are ready.
They wouldn't really need one to do 4K IP streaming though - just some sort of app on compatible TVs/BD players/etc
Hi Derek, Just to let you know that as well as Netflix Amazon Instant Prime have also now got 4K content. Some content is free and some of it they charge for but you can and keep content as well.
I would suggest that's VERY unlikely, assuming it ever did happen it's unlikely to be until well after 4K Sky boxes are available.
Yes, because Sky doesn't currently do streaming over IP to non-Sky hardware. Totally impossible.
If there's a large install base of 4K hardware they might well do it - it's cheaper than trying to push people onto new 4K STBs for the time being.
IIRC this is the way other TV operators like Comcast in the US are doing it - their cable network and cable STBs certainly can't do it right now, but if you have a Samsung TV and a Comcast internet connection they're offering some 4K content
http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-launches-xfinity-in-uhd-featuring-full-current-seasons-of-hit-series-on-demand-in-4k-ultra-high-definition
Ditto Netflix.
You seem to often like to state that something is unlikely or impossible.
I like to think of myself as the 'voice of reason' as opposed to suggesting wild flights of fancy that have no real chance of happening
It doesn't take much common sense to know that it's EXTREMELY unlikely that Sky will launch a 4K streaming service on non-Sky hardware - particularly before they even launch their own boxes.
Not to mention that the tiny number of 4K sales (and despite what people here like to imagine it is very small) hardly justify doing it yet. As I've said many times though, 4K WILL grow, simply because panel production will go more and more 4K, until lower resolution sets won't be available any more.
No one has said that streaming is going to be their preferred method of delivery, only that there wouldn't be a need for a 4k box if Sky opted for a 4k streaming service, it would be delivered like Netflix, which was what the OP was referring too.
You don't have a clue how their 4k service will pan out as much as the next man.