- This topic has 29 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have just been looking at and reading a review of the soon to be released Sky Q. This is going to be a real wake up call for the likes of BT TV/Youview, Apple TV, Amazon, Freesat Freeview Play etc. etc.
I realise of course that Sky Q will not be cheap (prices yet to be announced) and it is after all subscription TV. However, I can see this having real appeal to the public at large with it’s 12 tuners, being able to watch and record on multiple devices at the same time and the integration of On-demand, Netflix etc. etc.
Now, can it brew up?
So playing catch up with Freeview which has always been able to watch and record on multiple devices at the same time from a single feed?
Where is the 4K that was supposed to be SkyQ’s raison d’être?
Perhaps Sky came away from CES 2016 realizing they’ve been hunting the wrong dog.
https://www.avforums.com/article/ultra-hd-alliance-hdr-and-4k-blu-ray-at-ces-2016.12295
Perhaps they’re not alone…
Sky mouthpiece Recombu says:
Quote:Perhaps the most radical change Sky is bringing to customers homes with Sky Q is My Q.As we revealed last November, My Q is an umbrella feature that aggregates content from a variety of sources. Olsen called it a “personal centre” of Sky Q, which will be populated with quick links to recent recordings, purchases and recently watches or streamed shows.
MyView, anyone?
I can still see Mr & Mrs J. Public going for this in a big way. I’ll hold my hand up if I’m wrong but I do think it will prove popular.
There’s THIS
Faust – 4 minutes ago »
I can still see Mrs & Mrs J. Public going for this in a big way. I’ll hold my hand up if I’m wrong but I do think it will prove popular…
I agree with the caveat that cost will be important. If I were unconcerned about the cost I would sign up as soon as available. The Server/Client capability is going to be hugely popular (record a pgm then watch it on any device) and leaves Freesat sitting on the benches. Their failure to deliver this will prove a big mistake for them.
Pollensa1946 – 12 minutes ago »
Faust – 4 minutes ago »
I can still see Mrs & Mrs J. Public going for this in a big way. I’ll hold my hand up if I’m wrong but I do think it will prove popular…
I agree with the caveat that cost will be important. If I were unconcerned about the cost I would sign up as soon as available. The Server/Client capability is going to be hugely popular (record a pgm then watch it on any device) and leaves Freesat sitting on the benches. Their failure to deliver this will prove a big mistake for them.
If Freesat had just a fraction of Sky’s resources then things ‘could’ and that is only a ‘could’ be so very different.
Sky Q requires a new lnb and just two cables. The lnb is not compatible with satellite boxes designed to be used with ku band universal lnbs. The two cables unlike existing systems it appears cannot be used to provide any other services.
Anyone with existing, Sky, Freesat and generic FTA kit will require a second dish and extra cabling. Those on a communal install look as if they use existing cabling they will not be able to access multiplexed Terrestrial Digital TV and radio services. Those with only a single cable and can’t get a second will not be able to get SkyQ at all. Seems to me basically you will be totally locked into Sky pay through the nose services without any easy way of going back.
grahamlthompson – 6 minutes ago »
Sky Q requires a new lnb and just two cables. The lnb is not compatible with satellite boxes designed to be used with ku band universal lnbs. The two cables unlike existing systems it appears cannot be used to provide any other services.
Anyone with existing, Sky, Freesat and generic FTA kit will require a second dish and extra cabling. Those on a communal install look as if they use existing cabling they will not be able to access multiplexed Terrestrial Digital TV and radio services. Those with only a single cable and can’t get a second will not be able to get SkyQ at all. Seems to me basically you will be totally locked into Sky pay through the nose services without any easy way of going back.
That might be a tricky row to hoe, unless they’re going to keep both services running in tandem. Wouldn’t it amount to putting BBC behind a paywall, which is not supposed to happen?
grahamlthompson – 15 minutes ago » …Seems to me basically you will be totally locked into Sky pay through the nose services without any easy way of going back.
Agreed, but there are lots of couples, both working, two substantial incomes, to whom the technical aspects will mean nothing. They will be simply focused on the bang for the buck. I know some of them who already pay £50 p/m upwards for their SKY and will be signing up for this as soon as it becomes visible. Won’t be me as I refuse to pay a sub for TV.
JamesB – 2 minutes ago »
grahamlthompson – 6 minutes ago »
Sky Q requires a new lnb and just two cables. The lnb is not compatible with satellite boxes designed to be used with ku band universal lnbs. The two cables unlike existing systems it appears cannot be used to provide any other services.
Anyone with existing, Sky, Freesat and generic FTA kit will require a second dish and extra cabling. Those on a communal install look as if they use existing cabling they will not be able to access multiplexed Terrestrial Digital TV and radio services. Those with only a single cable and can’t get a second will not be able to get SkyQ at all. Seems to me basically you will be totally locked into Sky pay through the nose services without any easy way of going back.
That might be a tricky road to hoe, unless they’re going to keep both services running in tandem. Wouldn’t it amount to putting BBC behind a paywall, which is not supposed to happen?
Appears that isn’t possible.
The new lnb covers the whole of the ku band without band switching (wide band). As a result one cable carries both low band and high band horizontally polarised channels and the other the vertical ones, This allows two cable to feed 12 tuners in the top end SkyQ silver box.
This means the receiver no longer has any sort of lnb control, requiring only a 12V DC power output purely for power and therefore no 22kHz tone to control the lnb local oscillator.
Technical spec sheets here.
https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/skyq/product%20fact%20sheets
I’m lost, Graham, what are the consequences of the receiver having no lnb control?
It’s fairly obvious they will need to keep both services running in parallel for some number of years as not all SKY subs will switch.
JamesB – 44 seconds ago »
I’m lost, Graham, what are the consequences of the receiver having no lnb control?
A standard ku band universal lnb requires control signals from a tuner to control how it functions. The ku band is split at 11700Mhz lower than this is low band and 11700 and up is low band. The presence of a 22KHz tone from the tuner switches the lnb local oscillator (the local oscillator frequency controls the block shift downwards in frequency applied to the microwave rf received from the dish) to output the same IF frequencies as the low band channels. In addition the lnb is switched by the tuner to operate with either vertical polarised channels by outputting 12.5-14.5V or 15.5-18V DC for horizontal channels.
This also allows UHF and VHF to be multiplexed onto a single coax.
http://www.satcure.co.uk/tech/lnb.htm
The new lnb requires none of this and clearly you can’t mix the two systems on the same coax.
Thanks for the explanation. In that case they must indeed be planning to run the two services (Sky+ and Sky Q) in tandem, not just in transition but ongoing.
Sounds like a very risky experiment for a service with such a high churn.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.