Thick question coming up will they still be available through other channels or taken off satellite altogether
They are encrypted channels. If they disappeared from the EPG they could be found through the 'Add Channels' option, but not to watch, unless Discovery Networks take the ultimate hit and make them FTA/FTV (although surely there would be rights issues regarding that).
Can you add DVB-S2 channels via Add Channels now? At one point you could only add DVB-S stuff (or at least a limited range of symbol rates)
It's been a while since I've had Sky but I remember recording lots of films when I did subscribe to movie channels then being unable to watch them after I slimmed my subscription down a bit. Those channels were still on the air though, I just no longer subscribed to them, so I suppose that's a but different to the scenario here.
Yes - that's because the recordings on the Sky+ hard drive are straight off-air recordings of the encrypted broadcast. The decryption happens on playback (sensibly this means just one decryption unit is required - rather than two) As a result the subscription needs to be valid for the channel at the point of playback, not just recording.
I think the question here is whether Discovery channels being removed, and then reinstated in the EPG will disrupt series links. I guess we're about to find out...
I can't believe a resolution won't be found - it was in Scandinavia when Discovery and Canal Digital fell out.
If you want to know what programmes you think the programme makers themselves consider are the best, watch the BAFTAs, if you want to know what the mass ITV-watching audience likes, watch the NTAs.
Or arguably look at who wins the RTS awards. In some ways they are more 'industry' than BAFTA.
Like launching Sky Arts, Sky Atlantic and Now TV, this seems clearly aimed at capturing marginal subscription revenue from customers who wouldn't otherwise choose Sky.
Given the technical limitations of streaming I don't see it being a wholesale replacement of satellite in the medium term.
I don't think Sky will propse streaming for dish-less Sky, that's what NowTV is for.
I suspect Sky without a dish will be like BT's TV provision. That is implemented by multicast from the exchange. This is a VERY different kettle of fish to streaming (which is what OTT services use)
With streaming, you are unicasting a stream to every subscriber watching over the public internet, and usually have seamless switching between different bitrate streams (either using MPEG-DASH or one of the other systems like HLS or HDS?).
With multicast you route live streams over a private, non-public internet, backbone to the exchange, and make them available via multicast over the final leg. This means a single stream serves all subscribers simultaneoulsy (so you don't have to scale servers to subscribers in the same way), and you aren't at the mercy of 'public internet' and contention and QoS can be managed very differently. The reason they don't do this for NowTV is that multicast over the public internet isn't really an option. This will almost certainly mean you'll need Sky broadband of course...
The quality of the stream is fixed and at a 'broadcast quality' - and is pretty identical to the streams that you will get from satellite. (So you'll need to be able to cope with 18Mbs peaks for a single HD channel, and far higher for UHD, if they go for that quality. That said they COULD go for H265 - as I bet the Sky Q boxes support it, though 1080i doesn't compress that well in H265...)
Of course if you only have 70Mbs or less of final-leg download capacity, if you start watching or locally recording two different 4K channels in different rooms, your internet connection will slow down...
Last edited by noggin on 27 January 2017 1:27am - 2 times in total
IF Discovery were to go it alone and set-up an alternative subscription option on the Sky platform (something I believe Sky legally have to accommodate to avoid monopoly issues), it would be interesting to see how much pressure they would be put under to reduce their subscription rates.
Eurosport and the Discovery factual channels are not minor channels in the multi-channel arena, and have a pretty decent perceived value among viewers I'd suggest. If you lost them from your bundle (particularly if you don't subscribe to Sky's premium movies and sport), you'd expect your bundle to be cheaper...
Overall though find the NTAs very repetetive now and really been put off watching them in recent years by the begging for votes by the nominated programmes - started with the ITV daytime shows but even saw Breakfast do it this week.
My problem is that it's bereft of the class it had during the Sir Trev era. Sure, you can argue that it's more entertaining with the singing and whatnot, but having Scarlett shoved down our throats is the epitome of how a pretty prestigious ceremony turned into outright crowd-pleasing populism... And I'm aware of the irony saying that given the awards are solely audience-driven.
I don't think the NTAs have every been 'pretty prestigious'.
I realize the BBC is likely waiting for the next DSO before launching local HD feed but will they drag their feet even further by holding off on the HD feeds until all their regions are compatible?
What gives you that idea? BBC One HD is already on a 2nd gen mux on Freeview, the issue isn't in spectrum availability, it is in the cost of implementing an HD opt-chain for every English region (either using the current network distribution and back-haul, or by moving to a playout-centric system using contribution circuit)
The BBC has to decide the future model for regional content on BBC One HD and how it is implemented.
With a potential move to upgrade the SD English regions to HD this MAY have an impact in that decision, which is presumably why they aren't rushing. (The other reason is that politically it is very difficult to justify spending millions of pounds to upgrade the BBC One HD chain to carry SD upconverted content...)
If the HD upgrades also include a move to remote IP production, then this may have a very real steering impact on the decision taken in how to implement the opt-chains. (If all of your vision mixer crates, playout servers, graphics boxes, sound desk engines etc. are all co-sited in a small number of macro-regional data centres, with just I/O and control surfaces in the regional centres, then you can chose a different model compared to having to engineer a solution with 15 separate regional installs)
You also have to look at how you roll it out - with some 'edge' cases - like Jersey, Oxford etc. and the existing HD regions (London, Salford, Plymouth)
It may not happen before the DVB-T switch-off - but they aren't linked.
Quote:
I realize you guys have mentioned that if the BBC simulcast the London news on the HD channel viewers likely wouldn't change to their correct region.
It's not just that - it's the BBC making a statement that London News is more important than other regions by being available in HD when the others aren't. It's less a case of people watching London instead, more a case of sending a message that London is more important than where you may live.
Quote:
Why is then that ITV feels like they can get away with their larger HD regions vs the local SD ones but the BBC can't do the same? Surely ITV has a lot at stake if an advertiser buys a spot for a proper region but most viewers won't see it if they're in HD.
ITV's decision has NOTHING to do with regional news. It's all about advertising. They have to at least provide a degree of regionality on ITV HD to ensure the large audience that is now watching it see an advert at least partialy targetted at where they live. If they only put one HD region up, the audience for adverts on that channel would skew massively compared to the SD regional variations that fewer and fewer people are watching. This would be very bad news for ITV's revenue.
Now, it may be that Ofcom would only have jurisdiction if he made a statement akin to his tweet over the weekend on GMB's air, but even so, doesn't there come a point where ITV have to say to themselves: "Is it worth shouldering this liability and denting the programme's credibility when - even with the increased ratings Piers Morgan's presence brings - the BBC are still beating us almost two-to-one?"
Are there increased ratings? If so they are presumably pretty small... It's not as if Susanna and Piers have had a massive impact on them. They MAY have had a social media impact, and Piers is undoubtedly able to generate some online 'buzz'.
I do agree that it is a very odd situation, to have such an opinionated presenter on what is ostensibly supposed to be a news and current affairs show...
It's all about the promotion these days. It'll be great to see who comes into this year's BBC show. Hope it's not the current winner, can't bear it. Be good if they got a classic winner, though that 60 years show the BBC hosted didn't rate well at all.
To answer your question entertainment will be provided by Alexander Rybak, winner in 2009, and very oddly The Vamps. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why The Vamps will be performing.
To be honest, you could say the same about Justin Timberlake in Stockholm...
Interesting the BBC are doing this 1 month earlier this year. In fact in recent years they haven't revealed until early March.
Presumably it allows them to get onto the treadmill of cross-European promotion, including potentially appearing on other countries' selection shows (as I think happened when Jade Ewen was chosen relatively early to represent us in Moscow in 2009)?