SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[Bobdn]

I'm happy too. Bought at 3.96, but will hold on to see what happens

[minimoke]

Deal done

Only need minimoke and his mates to agree

I'd say Vodafone done well out of this deal
Ive owned telstra and telecom in the past. I dont have too much objection to owning vodafone. Especially if they can add value. Could be some nice synergies.

Up 17% at the moment so no complaints from me.

[Nevl]

This one's happy as...bought on the drop the other day and just sold for 5.25

Haha nice timing

[Harvey Specter]

I don't think Sky got a good deal here. Vodafone has $2.2bill in assets and $1.9bill in liabilities and made a loss last year of $120mill.The loss is probably some complex tax planning. will be interesting going forward to see if the inter-company charges whcih were apparently determined on an arms length basis change.

What will be interesting is if in a few years, all Sky TV customers will also be Vodafone customers. Will the bundles be irresistible to make people move from Spark (who are probably only with that funny named company because they have been with Telecom for 30 years).

The more interesting question (since i am not a shareholder) is whether there will be any need in future for a Sky box. Why cant it just be an app. Hopefully Vodafone will bring the tech smarts to help Skys terrible streaming product.

[Marilyn Munroe]

The future success of this venture depends on bundling services. Sky's cash should be put to work straight away to intergrate billing and customer relationship software.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

PS. The Rugby Union and their star players will be licking their lips thinking of the goodies that will be thrown arround when the broadcast rights contract comes up for renewal.

[bull....]

competition law may not allow sky to be only shown to vodaphone customers

[Bobdn]

That won't happen and Sky and VF wouldn't want that to happen. The more people that sign up to Sky the better regardless of ISP. Spark sells Lightbox to anyone but gives it free to its customers.

Oh dear, what an interesting precedent Spark appears to have set. I wonder if the Spark board, if it could go back in time, would have let the ISP/SVOD genie out of the bottle.

[Stumpynuts]

I wonder if there will be any ongoing repercussions with regards to internet streaming, Vodafone trying to crack down on IPTV or geo-blocking etc. etc. etc.

It's still a dead/dying business model that SKT has, having a global Telco won't change this fact.

[macduffy]

It's still a dead/dying business model that SKT has, having a global Telco won't change this fact.

I feel that way, too, Stumpy. So took the opportunity to sell the last of my SKT. Been meaning to for ages - procrastination pays off, for once!

:)

[Marilyn Munroe]

I wonder if there will be any ongoing repercussions with regards to internet streaming,
Internet streaming is "gunna happen one day"

The problem with internet streaming that is a point to point protocol. Thus if you wanted to watch the big match on Sky over the internet and Joe next door wanted to do the same Sky would have to send two seperate streams of data to accomplish this.

This is inefficient. The current IPv4 version of the internet can do broadcast data but it is such a horrible kludge that no one does it. The new IPv6 version which is only just starting to be rolled out has broadcast data as a built-in feature.

So in the future Sky its competitors or even the sports themselves could create an IPv6 broadcast video stream allowing clients to acess the stream. They would need to establish authentication as part of the process but the distribution of the video stream itself would be a minor technical problem.

Thus Mr Fellet should be strolling the offices of the Vodafone network geeks with a baseball bat in hand asking "Have you implemented IPv6 yet?"

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[Stumpynuts]

So in the future Sky its competitors or even the sports themselves could create an IPv6 broadcast video stream allowing clients to acess the stream. They would need to establish authentication as part of the process but the distribution of the video stream itself would be a minor technical problem.



Does this mean authenticated users will be prevented from being able to find a way to share their live streams with others should they wish to do so?

Joseph Parker's next fight scheduled for September later this year...

Titanic / Iceberg collision course I'm afraid...

[Bobdn]

Stumpy, why are you so worried about all this. Sky is a "dead/dying" model to quote you. Just relax and let rhe old Sky beast check out gracefully. When do you think this will happen by the way - before or after the next big fight?

[Stumpynuts]

Stumpy, why are you so worried about all this. Sky is a "dead/dying" model to quote you. Just relax and let rhe old Sky beast check out gracefully. When do you think this will happen by the way - before or after the next big fight?

I'm not worried at all from an investment point of view as I don't invest in SKT. I'm curious more so for the sake of those that embrace online streaming what future plans a global telco like VF might take to try and offer freedom of choice for internet users in NZ (Or take away freedom)

[LAC]

Anyone thats pays for the content can show the content....thats a fair playing field. If Netflix pay for it then sure enough people should buy their service but stealing the content and showing it isnt a fair playing field. Sky may now have better ways of blocking "certain" sites through VF.
I am all for that:)

[winner69]

Apparently there was a decent profit downgrade hidden away in the presentation material

[bull....]

I don't see the synergies as being as big as they say, and sky tv product is still going to face revenue decline even in bundled packages

[Zaphod]

Anyone thats pays for the content can show the content....thats a fair playing field. If Netflix pay for it then sure enough people should buy their service but stealing the content and showing it isnt a fair playing field. Sky may now have better ways of blocking "certain" sites through VF.
I am all for that:)

You're right - if a particular service has the content you want to watch, then by all means subscribe to it whether that be Netflix, Lightbox, Sky etc.

It's unfair for comparisons to be made between Sky and "free" services where content is effectively stolen. Redefining "illegal" or "stealing" is not the right way to legitimise the process, regardless of whether we agree with the existing business model of the content producers/distributors.

[Zaphod]

I don't see the synergies as being as big as they say, and sky tv product is still going to face revenue decline even in bundled packages

Yes - IMO in the very near future they will need to address pricing issues and separation of the content bundles if they want to survive.

[RGR367]

Worth not having to do with their very expensive subscription when you can watch all International sports (rugby, boxing, football, etc.)if you're willing to search the internet. I'm watching Joshua's title defense against Breazeale right now (about to start).


disc: never been a shareholder

[Marilyn Munroe]

Posters have not completely understood my recent post.

Broadcast streaming over the internet destroys the power of the agregators. Sports bodies could sell access to the video stream of their event directly to the public bypassing Sky. It is not beyond the bounds of technology for an event promoter to sell customers a one time one person key to decrypt the video stream of their event.

Want to watch an All Blacks test? Pay the Rugby Union not Sky.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[waikare]

Have to agree, I did not renew my sub. due to the cost.


Yes - IMO in the very near future they will need to address pricing issues and separation of the content bundles if they want to survive.

[macduffy]

Is anyone else watching the Euro 2016 games via MySky only to see the recording abruptly finish during a game's extra time? I was advised to extend the recording time to the maximum of 10 minutes but this is of little use when extra time and, potentially, a penalty shoot out takes up to 45 minutes. My solution - to be tested tomorrow morning - is to also record the following programme on the particular channel. Why SKY's programming staff don't have the wit to allow for this contingency when the competition reaches the knockout stages is beyond me!

Disc: Not a SKY shareholder.

[minimoke]

Is anyone else watching the Euro 2016 games via MySky only to see the recording abruptly finish during a game's extra time? I was advised to extend the recording time to the maximum of 10 minutes but this is of little use when extra time and, potentially, a penalty shoot out takes up to 45 minutes. My solution - to be tested tomorrow morning - is to also record the following programme on the particular channel. Why SKY's programming staff don't have the wit to allow for this contingency when the competition reaches the knockout stages is beyond me!

Disc: Not a SKY shareholder.
Bah!. Set my tivo remotely to record the dunedin nz Wales game. Scheduled finish after 2.5 hours but ends up being the 80 minute mark. Recording stops just as scrum sets. Bugger me - should have set extra time!

[LAC]

Is anyone else watching the Euro 2016 games via MySky only to see the recording abruptly finish during a game's extra time? I was advised to extend the recording time to the maximum of 10 minutes but this is of little use when extra time and, potentially, a penalty shoot out takes up to 45 minutes. My solution - to be tested tomorrow morning - is to also record the following programme on the particular channel. Why SKY's programming staff don't have the wit to allow for this contingency when the competition reaches the knockout stages is beyond me!

Disc: Not a SKY shareholder.

Like send through a hit to all the cards so that the recording continues after the allocated time slots? Uuuum I would have to think they would have to check every feed for every event running longer than expected and then send through an update to all set top boxes with the time adjusted recording. Yeah good luck with that:)

[macduffy]

Like send through a hit to all the cards so that the recording continues after the allocated time slots? Uuuum I would have to think they would have to check every feed for every event running longer than expected and then send through an update to all set top boxes with the time adjusted recording. Yeah good luck with that:)

No, a simple matter of the programming allowing more time for the games where extra time is a possibility, instead of the current practice of scheduling highlights from games played a few days previously. These games are being shown on a special "Football Pop-up" channel so clashing with other live events isn't an issue.

[Stranger_Danger]

Unreal. Tried to cancel Sky in one of my houses. Didn't really mind the expense, was happy to keep it, but have literally been able to use it due to rain fade problems. Happens every winter. Made the process difficult and now say they will bill me for the next 28 days for a service they literally cannot deliver to me and that I am not receiving.

End result, for the extra $80 they will receive?

I will now cancel both Sky AND Vodafone for every house, business and organisation I am involved in and have the power to do so and under no circumstances ever deal with either company again. (combined spend, thousands a month)

I have a rule for businesses I'm involved with : if a client wants to leave, let them, make it easy, and give them extremely good assistance as they're leaving. Odds are, you'll get their custom again should circumstances be different. How people act when they get a "no" tells you far more about them than when they get a "yes".

I now know everything I need to know about this organisation. Never again.

P.S I asked my neighbours if they'd been having the same problems. The half that hadn't already cancelled said yes, and are planning to cancel. Am now beginning analysis of SKT as a short opportunity. Post merger this thing is going to be even more of a mess than the two companies were individually.

[percy]

Unreal. Tried to cancel Sky in one of my houses. Didn't really mind the expense, was happy to keep it, but have literally been able to use it due to rain fade problems. Happens every winter. Made the process difficult and now say they will bill me for the next 28 days for a service they literally cannot deliver to me and that I am not receiving.

End result, for the extra $80 they will receive?

I will now cancel both Sky AND Vodafone for every house, business and organisation I am involved in and have the power to do so and under no circumstances ever deal with either company again. (combined spend, thousands a month)

I have a rule for businesses I'm involved with : if a client wants to leave, let them, make it easy, and give them extremely good assistance as they're leaving. Odds are, you'll get their custom again should circumstances be different. How people act when they get a "no" tells you far more about them than when they get a "yes".

I now know everything I need to know about this organisation. Never again.

P.S I asked my neighbours if they'd been having the same problems. The half that hadn't already cancelled said yes, and are planning to cancel. Am now beginning analysis of SKT as a short opportunity. Post merger this thing is going to be even more of a mess than the two companies were individually.

I think your rule for businesses you are involved in should be an example for all NZ businesses.
I totally agree it is the right way to conduct a successful business.

[RGR367]

Maybe you have other reasons but when almost all sports now being internet streamed in HD, I see no reason why anyone would ever want or need a SKY subscription. As for the movies, watching a new release picture on the theatre is a better way of appreciating a good film. But then again, it's your money so your call really.

[Stranger_Danger]

Maybe you have other reasons but when almost all sports now being internet streamed in HD, I see no reason why anyone would ever want or need a SKY subscription. As for the movies, watching a new release picture on the theatre is a better way of appreciating a good film. But then again, it's your money so your call really.

The reason I stayed with it is I like paying for content, especially if it is all in one place and easy. I'm a big believer in valuing intellectual property. I want to be paid for mine, I should pay for other peoples.

The truth is, if they can't even keep me, given that most people under 25 think content should be free as a right, they're totally doomed.

[ratkin]

Personally was considering giving them the flick. However they have just regained the rights to show premier league football after an agreement with bien.

Difference this time aroiund is they are putting Football on a pay per view channel. So will actually be paying them more now. Delighted though as having a season with no decent football feed was looking a distinct possibility after premierleaguepass lost the rights.

I know everything is available on the internet for free, however i cannot be bothered scrambling around looking for dodgy football feeds, riddled with advertising and malware. Half the football feeds are in Spanish and are often pulled mid match, forcing a hunt for another feed.

Regarding the rain fade issue. Happened to me, turned out the cable had fallen out and inadvertantly put back in the wrong slot. Nothing to do with the dish at all.

[Nasi Goreng]

Yes Vodafone can make things difficult. Dropped them this week and then cancelled Sky Tv which i understand is billed by the day.

I think these businesses have to change and quickly. The speed of change is now so fast that it is really difficult for these companies to keep up and old fashioned lock in deals won't keep customers forever.

[Bobdn]

Ha, everyone loves their "sky was mean to me so I dropped them" stories.

[Baa_Baa]

Ha, everyone loves their "sky was mean to me so I dropped them" stories.

Yes, therein lies the conundrum. SKT is likely and quite able to milk the declining customer base for many years yet and/or reinvent itself with online media distribution/broadcasting and consequently as a shareholder there could still be years of tasty dividends albeit perhaps offset by a declining vested capital base.

However for customers the experience is expensive and inconvenient and for their online customers it is also expensive, largely unreliable and very narrowly focused. Savvy customers are already ex-customers and sourcing their viewing elsewhere, it seems likely this will continue and perhaps even accelerate as more and more accessible diverse content becomes available quickly, cheaply and easily accessible via the internet competition.

[GTM 3442]

Ha, everyone loves their "sky was mean to me so I dropped them" stories.

I love my "Vodafone paid me to cancel" story more.

[Dilbert]

Unreal. Tried to cancel Sky in one of my houses. Didn't really mind the expense, was happy to keep it, but have literally been able to use it due to rain fade problems. Irrespective of the customer service, the rain fade was probably the LNB (the pointy bit of your dish). They tend to deteriorate over time. Mine was the same. As luck would have it, the Sky folk came and upgraded the box and they replaced the LNB at the same time. Works great now.

[Stranger_Danger]

Irrespective of the customer service, the rain fade was probably the LNB (the pointy bit of your dish). They tend to deteriorate over time. Mine was the same. As luck would have it, the Sky folk came and upgraded the box and they replaced the LNB at the same time. Works great now.

Yup. I'm sure it was an easy fix, a little customer service and I'd have stayed.

However...I'm not a technophobe, just real busy and not price sensitive.

Now I have been researching alternatives, I get where the young people are coming from - if you're ok with the morality of it, there seems no real reason to pay for content in 2016 or probably 5 years ago.

The long term outlook for Sky seems certain death, but I agree they'll keep their cashflow up for a while due to inertia.

[Gizzajob I can do that]

Yup. I'm sure it was an easy fix, a little customer service and I'd have stayed.

However...I'm not a technophobe, just real busy and not price sensitive.

Now I have been researching alternatives, I get where the young people are coming from - if you're ok with the morality of it, there seems no real reason to pay for content in 2016 or probably 5 years ago.

The long term outlook for Sky seems certain death, but I agree they'll keep their cashflow up for a while due to inertia.

This is a good example of some old fashioned customer service, lol
https://www.google.co.nz/url?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dlp4ywfFc9Rg&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj446mGtYjOAhWCKZQKHYmcBcQQtwIIHTAB&usg=AFQjCNEETRoLEXx2VZqibpubcOHAUV9tfQ

[Stranger_Danger]

Update : My Sky gear is now sitting in a box waiting to go back. Astonished at how far the tech has come since I last bothered fiddling. Thousands of channels and everything else one could want. The money is better spent on a UFB connection and a VPN than with Sky - you'll literally get better support from FAQ's written by teenagers, too.

[Baa_Baa]

Update : My Sky gear is now sitting in a box waiting to go back. Astonished at how far the tech has come since I last bothered fiddling. Thousands of channels and everything else one could want. The money is better spent on a UFB connection and a VPN than with Sky - you'll literally get better support from FAQ's written by teenagers, too.

So true and with the savings from abandoning your Sky subscription you're well ahead, covering UFB unlimited data, even with say a Netflix and/or a Lightbox subcription, or even the occasional FanPass fee to watch the Super15 quarters, semi's and finals (which works very well by the way, some small kudos to Sky).

This trend of enlightenment to what the internet offers and consequent decline in loyal subscribers paying way over the odds for a lousy Sky broadcast subscription of a few channels that no one watches anyway, surely paves the way to declining shareholder value and return on investment.

Sky is currently a case study in being the disrupted monopoly. While it is not all over for them by any means due to their enormous subscriber base, there is also little evidence that they want to invest to disrupt the disrupters.

[TideMan]

We abandoned Sky a couple of months ago and now watch everything by streaming using Kodi. We've found that our viewing pattern has completely changed. Instead of looking at what is available tonight, we have this vast library of TV and movies to choose from. It varies from programs like NZ: Mystical Islands narrated by Sam Neil which screened on BBC last week to all the old Dad's Army programs.
Now, the problem is finding out what's out there to watch, rather than having to watch what Sky thinks is good for us.

[Stranger_Danger]

We abandoned Sky a couple of months ago and now watch everything by streaming using Kodi. We've found that our viewing pattern has completely changed. Instead of looking at what is available tonight, we have this vast library of TV and movies to choose from. It varies from programs like NZ: Mystical Islands narrated by Sam Neil which screened on BBC last week to all the old Dad's Army programs.
Now, the problem is finding out what's out there to watch, rather than having to watch what Sky thinks is good for us.

Correct - while I now have thousands of channels to watch, my real question is "What is the point of a channel?"

Far more likely is me picking and choosing the underlying content - I suspect I'll be watching "stuff" rather than a "thing" that shows selected "stuff" at a time that suits them.

The content creators have serious long term questions, and while content creation and funding will change, clearly there will be a demand for content, with big questions over price.

The content aggregators? It is really, really hard to see what future role they have, although I guess with the aging population they could all buy rest homes and have a captive customer base...

[Stumpynuts]

We abandoned Sky a couple of months ago and now watch everything by streaming using Kodi. We've found that our viewing pattern has completely changed. Instead of looking at what is available tonight, we have this vast library of TV and movies to choose from. It varies from programs like NZ: Mystical Islands narrated by Sam Neil which screened on BBC last week to all the old Dad's Army programs.
Now, the problem is finding out what's out there to watch, rather than having to watch what Sky thinks is good for us.


Awesome to see another Kodi user here!
What I find shocking from NZ broadcasters is that they promote a brand new TV series or a new season of a TV show, and it's already screened in the US 6-8mths ago, whereas via streaming is only a couple of hours late waiting for a link to source.

[TideMan]

Awesome to see another Kodi user here!
What I find shocking from NZ broadcasters is that they promote a brand new TV series or a new season of a TV show, and it's already screened in the US 6-8mths ago, whereas via streaming is only a couple of hours late waiting for a link to source.
Kodi operating stand alone on Raspberry Pi 3B.
Our main add-ons are ITV, BBC iplayer, Exodus, and DevilSports.

[LAC]

Kodi operating stand alone on Raspberry Pi 3B.
Our main add-ons are ITV, BBC iplayer, Exodus, and DevilSports.
Is Kodi a legal service? Is it like Netflix where the content creators are being paid to show their content on that platform? I am confused as we seem to be comparing a company's performance in a dying industry to a somewhat illegal industry....
Doesn't seem to make sense to me....can someone explain to a newbie like me, thanks.

To me it just sounds like we are comparing the tobacco industry to the cannabis industry (in NZ that is, where one is illegal)

[Bjauck]

Kodi operating stand alone on Raspberry Pi 3B.
Our main add-ons are ITV, BBC iplayer, Exodus, and DevilSports.

I do not know about the others. However as a NZ resident, I have tried to access the BBC iPlayer - only to be informed by the BBC that I was in the wrong location. I thought that it was only available to those TV licence fee residents of the UK, actually resident in the UK. How much is the fee charged by the BBC for making their service available via Kodi?

[Cricketfan]

Is Kodi a legal service? Is it like Netflix where the content creators are being paid to show their content on that platform? I am confused as we seem to be comparing a company's performance in a dying industry to a somewhat illegal industry....
Doesn't seem to make sense to me....can someone explain to a newbie like me, thanks.

Kodi itself is legal, as it's just software that provides streaming. The content that people stream on there is usually not legally broadcast. Have a read of this for more info: http://wtvpc.com/is-kodi-legal-as-users-rise-so-do-questions/

[minimoke]

Is Kodi a legal service? Is it like Netflix where the content creators are being paid to show their content on that platform? I am confused as we seem to be comparing a company's performance in a dying industry to a somewhat illegal industry....
Doesn't seem to make sense to me....can someone explain to a newbie like me, thanks.

To me it just sounds like we are comparing the tobacco industry to the cannabis industry (in NZ that is, where one is illegal)
This is what I likek about the merger with Vodofone. Has does Kodi get to your TV. How does Netflix get to yoru TV. How do Demonoid (oops!) movies get to your TV. How does football cricket matches get to your TV. Nowadays it is all about going via the internet -and thats what Sky is getting into.

Now back to rugby or boxing for example. How does that get to your TV? Via internet right? No, wrong. Its get there firstly by having a camera / broadcast facility on site. And that is what Sky is into.
So own the cameras that capture the images and own the pipe that passes the images and you are looking at a much better business model.

So I'm hopeful (as a holder whose stop loss continues to fail to be hit) that Sky is an evolving company rather than part of a dying industry.

Ans as a further aside think about how copper is now dead and fibre is on the way out. Wireless is the future. So lets see how Vodafone manage that potential opportunity.

[minimoke]

What I find shocking from NZ broadcasters is that they promote a brand new TV series or a new season of a TV show, and it's already screened in the US 6-8mths ago, whereas via streaming is only a couple of hours late waiting for a link to source.
There in lies part of the problem. Its the time it take content to get to consumer. And we end up with a moral ethical dilemma.

For example. A "friend" of mine has just watched the final episodes of Person of Interest. The episodes were downloaded off one of those dodgy sites so it could be said to be pirating.

But in the meantime TVOne (? ) is broadcasting POI about five episodes (or more) behind. So my " Friend" could wait a bit and watch it locally for free. But we know nothing is Free. The content is probably paid by advertising revenue. But my Friend skips ads so doesn't watch them - so for all intents and purposes TVOne is paying for content that my Fiend is not contributing towards so getting it for free. So who is loosing out?

I'll tell you who isn't loosing out and thats Spark - because Spark are my Frinds internet provider and he pays them for the internet pipe and unlimited download at a fast rate.

[Zaphod]

Is Kodi a legal service? Is it like Netflix where the content creators are being paid to show their content on that platform? I am confused as we seem to be comparing a company's performance in a dying industry to a somewhat illegal industry....
Doesn't seem to make sense to me....can someone explain to a newbie like me, thanks.

To me it just sounds like we are comparing the tobacco industry to the cannabis industry (in NZ that is, where one is illegal)


As Cricketfan has stated, Kodi itself is not illegal but the streaming sources without a doubt either are or at least violate licencing agreements.

Typically, these streaming sources are provided by customers legitimately signed up for services (e.g. SOHO) who capture show and stream it to the internet. Various incentives are provided for providing this type of service.

You're right about it not being a fair comparison, but not only that it's also not a viable long term comparison as content creators do deserve to be paid for their work and if revenue falls, so will content production. Even those who have disintermediated their business (e.g. various sporting bodies) that now stream directly to customers instead of using third parties such as Sky are seeing their content provided for free via customers re-streaming through their own broadband services.

But at the end of the day, this is the reality that SkyTV investors currently need to pragmatically evaluate when making decisions about their investment.

[ratkin]

I do not know about the others. However as a NZ resident, I have tried to access the BBC iPlayer - only to be informed by the BBC that I was in the wrong location. I thought that it was only available to those TV licence fee residents of the UK, actually resident in the UK. How much is the fee charged by the BBC for making their service available via Kodi?

BBC do not like these services leeching off them and actively discourage them by occasionally making changes to iplayer.
However it is very easy to watch iplayer in NZ just by using a VPN. Even some of the browser extensions on google chrome will fool iplayer into thinking you are in the UK. Works for ITV and channel 4 as well

[Stumpynuts]

Kodi operating stand alone on Raspberry Pi 3B.
Our main add-ons are ITV, BBC iplayer, Exodus, and DevilSports.

Exodus is fantastic!
The sports addons are very hit and miss across all builds IMO, I'm yet to find a consistent addon to watch higher quality sports streams.

[Baa_Baa]

It's not about just content and delivery, albeit both are important and both of which Sky are on the back foot, though I accept it still has some relevance for a lot of existing Sky subscribers (their golden goose), and investors, who are yet to encounter the defining factors in digital disruption.

One could consider carefully when confronted with change as profound as the internet is presenting in digital media content and distribution, that more often that not, the change is to another provider, typically a number of providers as in TOTO they are still more cost effective than the previous single incumbent.

It is incredibly quick that this change in consumer viewing preference is taking place, leading to question where Sky is on that continuum of re-invention? A first mover, no. An early adopter, no. An early majority, no not really. Perhaps a late majority, seems more likely. Not a laggard though, but without pace of change, Sky are doomed in this regard. Here's why imho.

The first key factor is choice. Sky pre-suppose their viewers are interested in and will watch their content. This is a broken model, with the vast array of choice provided elsewhere, including to their annoyance pirated Sky content which they cannot eradicate, indicates the fundamental shift to consumer preference, dis-loyalty and choice in real-time viewing. Not some worn out TV guide approach, regardless of distribution channel.

The second key factor is legacy, being the sheer size of their customer base, relative to the NZ market. It is their golden goose but is also the shackles portending decline. Sky cannot disregard the loyal customer base who are wedded to the legacy model, which will perpetuate at great expense and no-growth, probably decline, until it is patently economically unviable. The loyal customer base defines the low glide to obsolescence.

Imho Sky is a terrible medium to long term investment, it has reached it's nadir and will devolve into obsolescence unless some miracle occurs and Sky find a way to grow the company. That will require confronting disruption head-on, redefining it's content model to enable vast choice with easy access, and at some point killing off it's expensive no-choice legacy delivery model with some quick and easy transfer to internet content consumption.

A fascinating study in the decline of a monopoly.

[mcdongle]

Exodus is fantastic!
The sports addons are very hit and miss across all builds IMO, I'm yet to find a consistent addon to watch higher quality sports streams.

Tried Castaway?

[Hectorplains]

Exodus is fantastic!
The sports addons are very hit and miss across all builds IMO, I'm yet to find a consistent addon to watch higher quality sports streams.

Exactly! If you want NRL (and I watch every game, all season) it's ridiculous to piddle around chasing streams - most are fuzzy, laggy and cut out... If $ isn't an issue (odd that you could be on a share forum and not be able to cough $80 a month) and live sports your buzz then it's still the best bet.

[Bjauck]

... If $ isn't an issue (odd that you could be on a share forum and not be able to cough $80 a month) and live sports your buzz then it's still the best bet.
Although share investing is a comparatively minor investment category for individuals in NZ compared with investor housing and fixed interest, there are some investors of modest means who have small holdings and who like to look at the boards. As real estate ownership these days, especially for Aucklanders, requires a substantial deposit, that traditional favourite Kiwi investment is increasingly out of reach - meaning shares are an achievable investment for those of modest to above-average means. So committing to $80/month may require a well considered decision.

[ratkin]

Exactly! If you want NRL (and I watch every game, all season) it's ridiculous to piddle around chasing streams - most are fuzzy, laggy and cut out... If $ isn't an issue (odd that you could be on a share forum and not be able to cough $80 a month) and live sports your buzz then it's still the best bet.

Exactly, it is the same with the premier league and other football content. Sky have won back the rights, and will be showing it pay per view. I am happy to pay rather than having to search for dodgy streams, often with commentary in spanish, while risking picking up malware or even viruses.
All these people chasing these illegal streams are ruining it for everyone, legitimate customers end up having to pay more. There is also less money available to actually make decent content.

It is all a bit grubby imo. Having said that, if the football has not come back to sky then i probably would have ended up going down the dodgy stream route

[minimoke]

If $ isn't an issue (odd that you could be on a share forum and not be able to cough $80 a month) and live sports your buzz then it's still the best bet.
I see it as a bit like tax. It's every investors responsibility to minimize their exposure to unnecessary costs that dont contribute to a $growth plan.

[minimoke]

All these people chasing these illegal streams are ruining it for everyone, legitimate customers end up having to pay more. There is also less money available to actually make decent content.

Im not sure there is any legitimacy to that argument.
Back in the day i used to have this machine which held a plastic box with black tape in it.

Id stay up late at night and record my favorite music of the wireless onto this black tape. My friends and i would swap our tapes. And we would listen to these copies until the tape stretched or got eaten by the machine.

Since then content and producers have expanded in numbers probably a million fold.

Recently we have seem the loss of tvnz7 and the start of c4 which is wall to real Housewives. We'd be hard put to blame that on piracy. It Is about a commercial agenda of the media corporates - and Therin lies the the true worriers about piracy.

[Stumpynuts]

Tried Castaway?

Yep, Castaway is my first choice go-to for sports, then I'll go through the others - UK Turks, Phoenix, Sportsdevil, etc. etc.
Very hit and miss with what you can expect to see quality wise, but I'm not fussed overall.

[Stumpynuts]

Exactly! If you want NRL (and I watch every game, all season) it's ridiculous to piddle around chasing streams - most are fuzzy, laggy and cut out... If $ isn't an issue (odd that you could be on a share forum and not be able to cough $80 a month) and live sports your buzz then it's still the best bet.

I'm not a die-hard sports junkie so I can sacrifice a little bit of quality for accessibility.
Most of the streams I see are in 640p which for me is watchable enough, majority of the times I'm dual screening anyways.

[Nasi Goreng]

That is the problem right there. Sports fans will pay $80 for the service but would watch little else. The value of everything else is about $10 at the very top so it makes the cost of the sports channel $70 + $10.

This business model is dying so its just a matter of time until things get divided up. i.e. last year I watched premier league football for $20 a month for the duration of the football season. If Sky have got this back, then unlike Ratkin, I will not be paying $80+ per month to watch one game of football per week. Sometimes you need to protest and if more people did, change would happen sooner.

[ratkin]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/82359132/Sky-TV-yet-to-secure-a-deal-for-Black-Caps-v-South-Africa-dismiss-PL-rumours

And now the cricket at risk

[Bobdn]

Sorry for cluttering up this thread with investment talk but I see BlackRock, some small operation out of the US, has recently increased its stake in Sky.

[Sideshow Bob]

Revenue same, net profit after tax down 14.4%, no special.

https://www.nzx.com/companies/SKT/announcements/287931

[minimoke]

Revenue same, net profit after tax down 14.4%, no special.

https://www.nzx.com/companies/SKT/announcements/287931

Damn, up 3% today and moving further away from my stoploss trigger. This is my most troublesome share and i keep hoping it will give me an excuse to push the button but, like today, refuses to cooperate.

[Rep]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/83555188/sky-tv-profit-falls-as-revenue-flatlines

Discussing the changes sweeping through the industry, Fellet said the internet-television services that Sky competed against were "priced too low to be commercially viable".
Netflix, which has almost 100 times as many subscribers as Sky around the world, was "significantly less" profitable than Sky with a profit margin of just 1.9 per cent, he said.

And they wonder why subscribers are wandering away from the price gouge that is their service...

[macduffy]

Damn, up 3% today and moving further away from my stoploss trigger. This is my most troublesome share and i keep hoping it will give me an excuse to push the button but, like today, refuses to cooperate.

I think this is the first post I've seen where a holder complains that his shares have increased in value!

:p

[minimoke]

I think this is the first post I've seen where a holder complains that his shares have increased in value!

:p
I think they only existvto annoy me. Like today. They say the future is fibre to settop boxes streaming 4k. Bull**** on three counts. Fibre is already obsolete. Who wants a set top box - its all Tablets and laptops nowadays. And 4k is for knobs who will sit 3m away from their 42 inch lcd screen.

[kiwi_on_OE]

I think they only existvto annoy me. Like today. They say the future is fibre to settop boxes streaming 4k. Bull**** on three counts. Fibre is already obsolete. Who wants a set top box - its all Tablets and laptops nowadays. And 4k is for knobs who will sit 3m away from their 42 inch lcd screen.

Don't tell gummint that UFB is obsolete, they'll be looking to waste more of our money on the next tech. 42inch, you need to upgrade, more like 50 or 60 inch. Friend just upgraded to 55inch 4k, so I'll pass on your msg. We were 4m away. To be fair I might have said something similar to him. :-)

I was underwhelmed by CEO comment that they were happy OTT hadn't cannibalised their subscriber base. I would have hoped they would try to incorporate it into the subscriber base and grow before someone else cannibalises the subscriber base for them.

[thedrunkfish]

Im interested to know what yout think has made fibre obsolete? And I would rather watch sport on a decent sized TV than a laptop or tablet any day of the week. Content will be delivered over the internet thats for sure, the cable supplying the connection is irrelevant other than the speed constraints.

[minimoke]

Don't tell gummint that UFB is obsolete, they'll be looking to waste more of our money on the next tech. 42inch, you need to upgrade, more like 50 or 60 inch. Friend just upgraded to 55inch 4k, so I'll pass on your msg. We were 4m away. To be fair I might have said something similar to him. :-)
.
The trouble with 4k (or a TV with resolution of approx 3840 x 2160 or 2160p (as opposed to 1920 x 1080 or 1080p) is an inconvenient problem commonly called the human eye. There is a physical limit to what it can see at 20/20 vision. Luckily for marketers there are two parts of the brain (lust and stupidity) which trump this inconvenience.

Lets take the "common" 55 inch (disclaimer: size of my 1080p TV) as a bench mark. To benefit from the 1080o definition the ideal sitting distance is 2.1m or less. For your friend with their new 2160p they need to be 0.9m or less away. If you are sitting 4m away then to see the benefits of a 2160p you would need a 210 inch. telly. If you sit further away than these distance the eye simply cant pick up the extra definition.

Now we have the issue of TV size dealt with the next is content. Go to your local shop and look at how much UHD content is available, None. There is some HD BluRay but not a heck of a lot.

But plastic discs are obsolete to so we need to look at streaming services. At the moment on good old fashioned broadcast TV there is sweet bugger all 1080p content. If you have a Tivo just do a search for HD programmes and you'll see there aint much there.

Ah - but there is Netflix I hear you say. Well it streams 4k at around 14mps (which is a whole lot less than Bluray1080 at 48mps) which means you are getting content with substantially sacrificed audio and colour quality

But luckily for me the two other parts of the brain trump the eye. So people are on the 4000k bandwagon which means SKY can trumpet these advances and dimwits think its is a great thing and the share price goes up.

[minimoke]

Im interested to know what yout think has made fibre obsolete? And I would rather watch sport on a decent sized TV than a laptop or tablet any day of the week. Content will be delivered over the internet thats for sure, the cable supplying the connection is irrelevant other than the speed constraints.
Vodafone touts it ultra fast Fibre cable at speeds of up to 100mps. Erriccson now has 5G(cable free) ticking over at 5gbs while the Japanese have got 100gps. The future is transmitters on your roof.

Oh - and I didnt mean watching content on your tablet. I meant using it as a streaming device rather than a set top box. For example I now have all video content sitting on my laptop (other than Lightbox which is an app on my phone) and simply cast it to my telly via Chromecast. I let the TV handle the upscaling but I admit to suffering the poor audio quality. If I want 5.1 audio I'll move content via my bluray player through my audio system. Not ideal but close enough after a few beers.

[Bobdn]

Nothing is better than fibre. Vodaphone cable is what you put up with if you cant get fibre and 5g wont be here for 5 years. And when it does it will be more expensive and still wont be better than fibre. Fibre's capacity is almost limitless.

[thedrunkfish]

Modern tvs are just big tablets anyway set top boxes are definitely obsolete everything will just be apps on tvs. But my argument was on fibre being obsolete. It's not. Fibre is here to stay as the rollout continues. The problem with your comparison to Japan is the population densities are so vastly different it just can't be compared.

[minimoke]

Modern tvs are just big tablets anyway set top boxes are definitely obsolete everything will just be apps on tvs. But my argument was on fibre being obsolete. It's not. Fibre is here to stay as the rollout continues. The problem with your comparison to Japan is the population densities are so vastly different it just can't be compared.
Shall we just come back in 5 years and see how fixed wireless broad band evolves. Spark has it. Vodafone is looking at it.

[Bobdn]

Definitely. Lets meet back here in five years ;)

[Cricketfan]

Shall we just come back in 5 years and see how fixed wireless broad band evolves. Spark has it. Vodafone is looking at it.

I just switched to wireless broadband yesterday. It's fantastic, although I'll have to see what it's like when more people on my street sign up for it. At the moment though it's so much better than ADSL without the hassle of switching to VDSL or fibre, and it's the same price too. I'm getting 60mbps down and 30mbps up which is more than enough for me.

[Bobdn]

Yes its good, just depends on what you use it for. If you stream in HD through Netflix or Lightbox, you'll probably hit the data cap pretty quickly. Also, its not great for gaming online due to latency.

[Zaphod]

Nothing is better than fibre. Vodaphone cable is what you put up with if you cant get fibre and 5g wont be here for 5 years. And when it does it will be more expensive and still wont be better than fibre. Fibre's capacity is almost limitless.

I agree. Wireless technologies (and I'll include both cellular [4G LTE, 5G] and Wi-Fi 802.11 standards) certainly have their place, however there is a much more finite amount of overall bandwidth available than compared to fibre. For data intensive applications, fibre is still the clear winner and is highly unlikely to be unseated from it's throne, despite the disadvantages of being tethered to a cable.

[Zaphod]

The trouble with 4k (or a TV with resolution of approx 3840 x 2160 or 2160p (as opposed to 1920 x 1080 or 1080p) is an inconvenient problem commonly called the human eye. There is a physical limit to what it can see at 20/20 vision. Luckily for marketers there are two parts of the brain (lust and stupidity) which trump this inconvenience.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good marketing story! It's the same reason why we need to purchase the latest smartphone with higher resolution, bevelled metal edges, faster processor and the ability to multitask 20 app's at once and pay $1200 for a device that costs $200 to make – marketing spin.

[Stumpynuts]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good marketing story! It's the same reason why we need to purchase the latest smartphone with higher resolution, bevelled metal edges, faster processor and the ability to multitask 20 app's at once and pay $1200 for a device that costs $200 to make – marketing spin.


Yes some of the markups on smartphones here are shocking!

I just got me a Chinese smartphone - Xiaomi Mi5 for NZD $350
Google this phone for reviews - Specs are comparable to the big brand flagship phones currently out.

The only thing is nobody really sells them direct here in NZ.

[Nasi Goreng]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story? which mobile phone manufacturer is making 83% gross margin on their phones?

[Zaphod]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story? which mobile phone manufacturer is making 83% gross margin on their phones?

Exact estimates of cost to manufacture vary slightly, but none the less it's Apple in this case. Hence why they hold $16b in cash & equivalents.

[thedrunkfish]

Ah - but there is Netflix I hear you say. Well it streams 4k at around 14mps (which is a whole lot less than Bluray1080 at 48mps) which means you are getting content with substantially sacrificed audio and colour quality

But luckily for me the two other parts of the brain trump the eye. So people are on the 4000k bandwagon which means SKY can trumpet these advances and dimwits think its is a great thing and the share price goes up.
Your not comparing apples with apples there Bluray uses H.264 and Netflix UHD content uses the H.265 encoder wich is significantly better.

[Entrep]

ComCom has issues: http://comcom.govt.nz/dmsdocument/14895
SKY release: https://nzx.com/companies/SKT/announcements/291781

[Major von Tempsky]

I remember mentally noting that the merger would be off once the Sky price sank towards $4. Here's an article saying that the merger is now definitely OFF!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/85987508/sky-and-vodafone-merger-on-path-for-rejection

[JAX]

Interesting to see that the "Games of National Significance Bill" which also could be called the SKY Killer bill has been drawn from the ballot and will be debated. Basically most of the important SKY sports content (rugby, league, cricket, netball even trotting that involves NZ) would be mandatory free to air - you can see the list here -

https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/51HOH_MEMBILL210_1/8b6d4c8bea13b65b9c4e4008dd598cb9d667ba5c

No idea if this has legs in terms of getting passed, normally I wouldn't think it would, but with JK on the way out, could be just the populist type bill that opportunist politicians from across the spectrum get behind as its not like there is much love lost with Sky and the public so lots to gain and little to lose.

[blackcap]

Interesting to see that the "Games of National Significance Bill" which also could be called the SKY Killer bill has been drawn from the ballot and will be debated. Basically most of the important SKY sports content (rugby, league, cricket, netball even trotting that involves NZ) would be mandatory free to air - you can see the list here -

https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/51HOH_MEMBILL210_1/8b6d4c8bea13b65b9c4e4008dd598cb9d667ba5c

No idea if this has legs in terms of getting passed, normally I wouldn't think it would, but with JK on the way out, could be just the populist type bill that opportunist politicians from across the spectrum get behind as its not like there is much love lost with Sky and the public so lots to gain and little to lose.

Look at that list of sports that would have to be given free. That really would be the end of SKY as that is (I believe) the only reason people still have SKY (I have it purely for the rugby, cricket and tennis) and Netflix offers the rest.
Is it good for the country for such a bill to pass? At $1000 per household I do not think it is but as you say JAX, who knows with the political environment at present.

[bull....]

look at all the taxpayers that fund sport one way or another who cannot enjoy watching it because they cannot afford sky tv

[macduffy]

The list of games doesn't include allrugby, cricket etc although it seems to cover the most important - to NZ - contests. I don't see it as being the end of SKY although it would make a serious dent in their revenues, offset somewhat by the lower programming costs for the sports involved.

Disc: Not holding.

[macduffy]

The list of games doesn't include all rugby, cricket etc although it seems to cover the most important - to NZ - contests. I don't see it as being the end of SKY although it would make a serious dent in their revenues, offset somewhat by the lower programming costs for the sports involved.

Disc: Not holding.

[Jay]

People may want it free to air, who is going to pay for it- taxpayers of course, plus unless there is a dedicated channel(s)(may not be as it is mostly Finals only looking at the list), you will get plenty of bleaters saying that it is pushing out , 'insert your favourite programme here', as well would they keep adds out during the game - at least the same as sky does now?? etc.
yes it would affect sky as we know it unless the govt paid sky to show it free.
Though, as has been pointed out before from memory, Sky own OBC who do the actual filming of the majority of games in NZ don't they?

[JAX]

The list of games doesn't include allrugby, cricket etc although it seems to cover the most important - to NZ - contests. I don't see it as being the end of SKY although it would make a serious dent in their revenues, offset somewhat by the lower programming costs for the sports involved.

Disc: Not holding.

It would make a very serious dent, and whilst it might reduce some costs, I actually think it would seriously effect its ability to bid for other unaffected sports (eg English Premier League, PGA etc) which could cause futher pain should it be lost to competitors. In this day an age noone really signs up to Sky for the movies or the History channel - all of this is easily found elsewhere - they are highly dependant on sports if you ask me.

[Baa_Baa]

It would make a very serious dent, and whilst it might reduce some costs, I actually think it would seriously effect its ability to bid for other unaffected sports (eg English Premier League, PGA etc) which could cause futher pain should it be lost to competitors. In this day an age noone really signs up to Sky for the movies or the History channel - all of this is easily found elsewhere - they are highly dependant on sports if you ask me.

It might not make such a big dent in Sky revenues, in fact it may increase revenues if the government broadcaster pays Sky for the rights to broadcast certain nationally significant sports free to air. This assumes that the sports (rights holders) will only select one distributor. It seems unlikely to me that the government broadcaster would compete with Sky for rights to distribute sports content. This approach would also be less likely to disenfranchise existing Sky customers.

[Entrep]

Are they going to force SKY to produce/film/etc all the ABs games to give to the FTA channels too? Who else in the country is going to get that setup going around the country in dozens of venues without spending a ton?

[Bobdn]

Poor old Sky, subscribers down and possibly it's last hope, a merger with Vodafone, is in doubt.

I guess in time Sky could just fade away. At least small Mom and Pop companies like Amazon and Netflix will have a better chance to prosper.

[Baa_Baa]

Poor old Sky, subscribers down and possibly it's last hope, a merger with Vodafone, is in doubt.

I guess in time Sky could just fade away. At least small Mom and Pop companies like Amazon and Netflix will have a better chance to prosper.

Lol, funniest thing I've read for ages ... small, hilarious.

Writing is on the wall for Sky, slow glide to oblivion unless they find a transition pathway from the status quo set top box subscriber model to internet delivered content distribution. A mighty hurdle as their industry is being 'disrupted'.

What that does to the P&L and balance sheet in the meantime, who knows but it won't be pretty.

[Bobdn]

Monster swings with SKT over the last week to get us back to where we started at on Monday.

I rarely gamble these days The share market provides more than enough thrills and spills.

[Ghost Monkey]

And the world's largest asset manager continues to build a stake. Some smart people gambling? Or a lazy investment that pays a steady div for a few more years as it shuffles along?

[Bobdn]

Skt shed it's 15 cent dividend yesterday and recovered that amount in minutes. Good times.

[minimoke]

Skt shed it's 15 cent dividend yesterday and recovered that amount in minutes. Good times.
This share kust keeps refusing to lay down and die for me. Every time it gets close to my stop loss the trend reverses.oh well may as well keep the dividends

[JeremyALD]

Any guesses on the outcome of the Commerce Commission decision?

I'm thinking it'll get approved, but not quite willing to put my money where my mouth is. Big money to be made on Thursday if you're willing to jump in and it gets the go ahead.

[Bobdn]

Tom Pullar-Strecker thinks it won't happen

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/85987508/Sky-and-Vodafone-merger-on-path-for-rejection

I hope it does but wouldn't bet on it. I bought 10,000 SKT at 3.96 last year before the proposed merger was announced. I bought them knowing SKT was up against it and may eventually be consumed by Amazon Prime; Lightbox; Netflix and a myriad of other future providers and competitors including companies like Spark bidding and winning high end sports (funny how Spark didn't at all have a problem with the merger when it was announced and "welcomed the competition" but now has done a u-turn). I bought hoping this would be a long way off - 15 years or more at least and in the meantime dividends would keep flowing. Things seem to be happening a lot more quickly.

[Out to lunch]

I reckon it'll go through. NZME/Fairfax will be the more interesting one

[RTM]

I don't think it will go through without some conditions put on it.
I am hoping these might be around the monopoly that SKY have on live sport in this country.

[brend]

not a good half year result tbh.

subs down.

Revenue down, costs up

Revised full year forecast for FY down 5-7%

this beast is dying slowly.

[ohpark0119]

Expected result

[Entrep]

Spark wins the battle and gets a stay. VF and SKY must wait 3 days after the decision to merge. They will be FUMING

[Raz]

Spark wins the battle and gets a stay. VF and SKY must wait 3 days after the decision to merge. They will be FUMING

Going bad to worse...

[JAX]

Spark wins the battle and gets a stay. VF and SKY must wait 3 days after the decision to merge. They will be FUMING

Its worse, its 3 days after the REASONS are released, not the decision - the CC has said the reasons will come a lot later - its unclear when that will be, but it will weeks if not months.

The whole deal has a breakup clause (as in either side can pull out if they want) on 28th of Feb - which is now blown unless they both agree to extend it .

[Entrep]

Wow had completely forgotten about the drop dead date, high stakes stuff indeed.

[ohpark0119]

Deal's off

[bucko]

abandon ship!

[Big Blind]

Deal's off

Pretty short sighted decision by the Comcom. Disappointing.

[ohpark0119]

Pretty short sighted decision by the Comcom. Disappointing.

Here comes the panic wave

[stoploss]

here comes the panic wave

360 open .

[ohpark0119]

360 open .

Is it too late to jump off the harbour bridge? Hope water isnt too cold

[xafalcon]

Pretty short sighted decision by the Comcom. Disappointing.

Only disappointing for SKT shareholders.

Overall good news for New Zealand public, which is exactly what comcom is supposed to focus on

[bucko]

finally the wake up call for Sky to start innovating? do they have enough time left though..

[BlackCross]

Only disappointing for SKT shareholders.

Overall good news for New Zealand public, which is exactly what comcom is supposed to focus on

Good for Spark...they can continue bumbling along.

[silu]

finally the wake up call for Sky to start innovating? do they have enough time left though..

SKY TV reminds me of grandpa who although a lovely fella never really tried to change his ways and just slowly withers towards his inevitable death. There's still time to management to be bold but they better start soon.

[Sideshow Bob]

Minimoke, you should be happy, you finally hit your stop loss, couple of days after getting your divvy!

[Stumpynuts]

finally the wake up call for Sky to start innovating? do they have enough time left though..

Nope they (SKT) left it far too long.
Media player boxes running Kodi are all that are required.

[Sideshow Bob]

Just from a very superficial viewpoint, and no disrespect to John Fellet, but I have often wondered how a guy who is has been at Sky since 1991 as COO or CEO (that's 26 years) and in his 60's is still CEO and running the show. Rapid technological change and heavy disruption - is he the best person to guide the ship and foresee where the business is going and guide it through? Do you need a younger/more digital or internet savvy person running the cutter??

[xafalcon]

Just from a very superficial viewpoint, and no disrespect to John Fellet, but I have often wondered how a guy who is has been at Sky since 1991 as COO or CEO (that's 26 years) and in his 60's is still CEO and running the show. Rapid technological change and heavy disruption - is he the best person to guide the ship and foresee where the business is going and guide it through? Do you need a younger/more digital or internet savvy person running the cutter??

My understanding was that JF had some very good connections into successive governments which kept the regulators at bay for many years - not what you know but who you know (and can influence). The proposed merger with Vodafone appears to have pushed the boundary too far

[Zaphod]

Nope they (SKT) left it far too long.
Media player boxes running Kodi are all that are required.

Except that someone - perhaps not in NZ though - needs to be a subscriber to the programmes you want to watch in order for those plugins to work.

[Zaphod]

Only disappointing for SKT shareholders.

Overall good news for New Zealand public, which is exactly what comcom is supposed to focus on

Perhaps in the short term it is good news, however in the medium term is it likely that a dominant international player will instead supplant Sky. The ultimate future of the industry depends upon how far the disintermediation trend goes.

[xafalcon]

Perhaps in the short term it is good news, however in the medium term is it likely that a dominant international player will instead supplant Sky. The ultimate future of the industry depends upon how far the disintermediation trend goes.

I agree with the second sentence and see content being sold directly by the producer to the customer ie. no forced bundling (eg to get sky sports you have to buy all the sky basic channels). No idea on timing though, maybe gradually over the next 10 years? Perhaps buying content in a similar way to the app shop for smart phones, but with regionalised pricing to reflect different value in each market.

And this means I do not see the first sentence as being likely to dominate, but it would be another niche for subscribers who prefer that someone else does the leg work

Kind of like how travel agents still exist. We can all book direct with airlines and hotels and save some money, but some people just prefer to use a travel agent

FYI I see Sky Sport as a production company, so SKT has in my view a reasonable future, albeit in a different niche than their current mixed model of being a content producer and a content bundler

[minimoke]

Minimoke, you should be happy, you finally hit your stop loss, couple of days after getting your divvy!
Yep - they are finally gone!

Now to see if there is any potential phoenix that might encourage me to get back in.

[Stumpynuts]

Except that someone - perhaps not in NZ though - needs to be a subscriber to the programmes you want to watch in order for those plugins to work.

Incorrect.

[Zaphod]

Incorrect.

No stumpy, it's correct - many of the streams which the plugins provide access to come from legitimate subscribers who have been recruited to stream services onto the internet. Typically an additional streaming media device is placed onto their local LAN and connected to their set top box. I myself have been asked and been offered inducements for this while living in Canada, but I declined.

[kiwitrev]

Yep - they are finally gone!

Now to see if there is any potential phoenix that might encourage me to get back in.

Put it all in ATC on ASX-you'll make a fortune

[Stumpynuts]

No stumpy, it's correct - many of the streams which the plugins provide access to come from legitimate subscribers who have been recruited to stream services onto the internet. Typically an additional streaming media device is placed onto their local LAN and connected to their set top box. I myself have been asked and been offered inducements for this while living in Canada, but I declined.

What you said is correct.

However incorrect when you say a subscriber is needed....... :D

[Zaphod]

What you said is correct.

However incorrect when you say a subscriber is needed....... :D

Stumpy, to be clear - someone needs to have subscribed to the content (e.g. HBO, Showtime, Sports) in order for it to be released on the internet and available via the plugins. That's completely correct. http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/images/icons/icon7.png

[Baa_Baa]

I think stumpy is trying to clarify to zaphod that, the 'streams' come from legitimate distributors (of content)

"many of the streams which the plugins provide access to come from legitimate subscribers"

Any which way, SKY have a stranglehold on the sport channels and the financial resources to sustain it for the foreseeable future.

What they need to do is, imho, tap into the broader content distribution market and publish through their set-top box and Internet channels, in order to remain relevant for the longer term.

Fortunately they have Mr Handley on the board who knows this, and much more, so they'll be right for longer than most would think possible.

[Stumpynuts]

Stumpy, to be clear - someone needs to have subscribed to the content (e.g. HBO, Showtime, Sports) in order for it to be released on the internet and available via the plugins. That's completely correct. http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/images/icons/icon7.png

Yes you are correct

[ohpark0119]

Hope they have plan c as well

[BlackCross]

I thought the joint deal would be a decent one for customers. Now it's off I hope they think of starting their own broadband and doing their own joint package - I'm sure they have the capability to do just that.
Didn't own but bought a few at 3.70

[Subway]

The key issue is Sky have been so fearful of transforming that they havent preemptively cannibalized their business model, the outcome was always going to be the same.

They could have front footed it, given the infrastructure is already largely paid for, the cost is licensing, they can either change, and accept reduced profit margins, or lose it all.

I know a number of their die hard older subscribers who have now cancelled their subscriptions, these are people that 5 years ago never would have contemplated cancelling, they just couldnt justify the cost for what is essentially a rugby subscription.

Think Fellet should roll on this now, hes done his dash, they need someone with vision before it enters a death spiral.

Note, we use an Amazon Fire Stick with Kodi now in our flat, doesn't matter that someone else is paying for the subscription, until Sky realises their business model is broken, they won't change.

[Raz]

The key issue is Sky have been so fearful of transforming that they havent preemptively cannibalized their business model, the outcome was always going to be the same.

They could have front footed it, given the infrastructure is already largely paid for, the cost is licensing, they can either change, and accept reduced profit margins, or lose it all.

I know a number of their die hard older subscribers who have now cancelled their subscriptions, these are people that 5 years ago never would have contemplated cancelling, they just couldnt justify the cost for what is essentially a rugby subscription.

Think Fellet should roll on this now, hes done his dash, they need someone with vision before it enters a death spiral.

Note, we use an Amazon Fire Stick with Kodi now in our flat, doesn't matter that someone else is paying for the subscription, until Sky realises their business model is broken, they won't change.

They have suffered from Inertia and short term thinking know they face up and make real strategic decisions.

[Rep]

They have suffered from Inertia and short term thinking know they face up and make real strategic decisions.

From the NBR -
Meanwhile, Fellet muses that after a poor first-half result, Sky TV boss John Fellet says the second half looks better, at least in terms of content that's likely to win back subs -- whether his company is standalone or combined with Vodafone:

"I’ve been in New Zealand for 26 years and by far the hottest ticket in a 12 year period is always the Lions’ tour. It’s even bigger for us than the Rugby World Cup"
"We’ve got the America’s Cup for the first time, so we’re pretty excited about that."
"The Rugby League World Cup is coming up later this year."
"Then on the entertainment side, the equivalent for the Rugby World Cup, [the new series] of Game of Thrones. And I think that’ll hit this market around June."

Lions' Tour - I'll give him that - dunno if it will win back subs but it might slow the rot with the diehards for a bit longer. You wonder if one day that SANZAR, the NZRFU or even the RWC are going to finally realise that they can disintermediate, produce and control the content themselves rather than allowing a broadcaster to skim the tab...
America's Cup - it's in Bermuda this time which isn't the greatest time zone slot in the world and we've never had the event on payTV so it will be interesting to see if they win back subs for this event.
RLWC - Yeah ok - there isn't a lot of depth in teams outside NZ, Australian and GB but yep diehards will be there but you can also see a lot of folk trying to stream the few games that will matter.
Game of Thrones - yes that's a drawcard. It's also the most heavily pirated series in history although to be fair Sky has tried to bring on the content as quickly as it screens elsewhere to counter that and HBO at least still screens the series in linear mode

[bottomfeeder]

I as well as nearly everyone I know (except for my mother in law) have ditched Sky for the kodi app. My nexbox running android cost me NZ$45 on Ebay incuding postage. I can stream just about any content I like, legal as well as slightly less than legal. Kodi is a free app which you can install on any phone, tablet, computer etc. The app is not illegal it is a free source app. I havent quite got a smart TV yet but you could probably load it on a smart TV. Sky is going to have to look at their model very closely to survive. They already have an internet based system in place running Neon TV. Its a little dearer than Netfflix, Lightbox eand many others. I see them writing off quite a few of their Mysky boxes soon, which will put a dent in their earnings.

[Stumpynuts]

I as well as nearly everyone I know (except for my mother in law) have ditched Sky for the kodi app. My nexbox running android cost me NZ$45 on Ebay incuding postage. I can stream just about any content I like, legal as well as slightly less than legal. Kodi is a free app which you can install on any phone, tablet, computer etc. The app is not illegal it is a free source app. I havent quite got a smart TV yet but you could probably load it on a smart TV. Sky is going to have to look at their model very closely to survive. They already have an internet based system in place running Neon TV. Its a little dearer than Netfflix, Lightbox eand many others. I see them writing off quite a few of their Mysky boxes soon, which will put a dent in their earnings.


Smart TVs IMO aren't really that smart.

Keen to hear everyone's thoughts on which apps they use for watching sport on Kodi, given there's a whole heap of them out there.
What builds are people running on their Kodi?

[Entrep]

I as well as nearly everyone I know (except for my mother in law) have ditched Sky for the kodi app. My nexbox running android cost me NZ$45 on Ebay incuding postage. I can stream just about any content I like, legal as well as slightly less than legal. Kodi is a free app which you can install on any phone, tablet, computer etc. The app is not illegal it is a free source app. I havent quite got a smart TV yet but you could probably load it on a smart TV. Sky is going to have to look at their model very closely to survive. They already have an internet based system in place running Neon TV. Its a little dearer than Netfflix, Lightbox eand many others. I see them writing off quite a few of their Mysky boxes soon, which will put a dent in their earnings.

I think you meant legal as well as illegal - let's call a spade a spade. I am surprised so many here run Kodi.

[Hoop]

I think you meant legal as well as illegal - let's call a spade a spade. I am surprised so many here run Kodi.

Hmmm..some are grey area stuff...like picking up International Cricket when India plays at home on India's free to air TV feeds... may need proxy servers to view the Indian website now but running proxies aren't illegal either..

Old systems become the establismment by cementing in their dominate presence over time by getting laws passed to protect that system and the whole network which depends on that systems survival ..Therefore, all new budding disruptive systems which threatens the old estabilishment are therefore deemed as illegal...


Industrial Revolutions (We are in the 3rd one presently) breaks down old establishment systems and replaced with new more efficient streamlined systems using new production methods and innovative behaviour.

SKY has Luddite thinking ...avoid!

EDIT: Interesting as time passes how a tech disruptive system slowly morphs into an establishment..Are we are witnessing this with Google? New search engines popping up (deemed as unsavoury by the establishment) to fill that Torrent site search engine demotion (censor) void e.g Duckduckgo.

[LAC]

I think you meant legal as well as illegal - let's call a spade a spade. I am surprised so many here run Kodi.
Thank God there's someone seeing sense here!! People on here quoting Kodi vs Sky is insane....might as well put up torrent links as well while we are at it.

[ohpark0119]

Thank God there's someone seeing sense here!! People on here quoting Kodi vs Sky is insane....might as well put up torrent links as well while we are at it.

uTorrent can whoop sky's bum. Why pay kodi or sky when you can torrent all day everyday

[Entrep]

Hmmm..some are grey area stuff...like picking up International Cricket when India plays at home on India's free to air TV feeds... may need proxy servers to view the Indian website now but running proxies aren't illegal either..

True but let's be honest, people are talking about All Blacks, Black Caps, Game of Thrones etc. If they are talking about replacing SKY with Kodi then they are talking about replacing SKY content with Kodi... and SKY generally has exclusive rights to their content in NZ. It's illegal. I'm no judging, but that's what it is.

[Rep]

True but let's be honest, people are talking about All Blacks, Black Caps, Game of Thrones etc. If they are talking about replacing SKY with Kodi then they are talking about replacing SKY content with Kodi... and SKY generally has exclusive rights to their content in NZ. It's illegal. I'm no judging, but that's what it is.

Actually how do you know it isn't legal - is there a case where this has actually been tested here? There are parallel imported products, there are region 1 DVDs you can purchase freely and arrive here, there are products that aren't available to directly ship here from the US you can freight forward via YouShop - yes that's products and that is not illegal.

But you can subscribe to the US Amazon Prime service which is not geo-blocked and watch content that someone may have rights to in New Zealand, you can rent movies on a US shop iTunes account or an Australian one and watch them here - again that is greyer but consensus is neither of these isn't illegal to do either.

Now if something is being screened free to air somewhere then it's clearly not illegal to watch or even record it.

If something is available to watch for free via stream but is geo blocked then most folk can't watch it. There's nothing not legal in operating a proxy or even a secure VPN - so if it happens that a stream becomes available to view of a free to air stream somewhere else, tell me how by opening that stream you have done something illegal. As far as exclusive rights are concerned, that's a contract between a broadcaster and a content provider - not any contract between a consumer and anyone else.

Now your countervailing argument is that the content is copyrighted but is there any real difference between a parallel imported DVD of season 1 of Man in the High Castle and someone watching Man in the High Castle on demand on Amazon Prime - as opposed to say watching it on TV3? I would say very little at all - the content provider has been compensated for the content.

Next you have to ask with an FTA stream where's the actual breach of the rights? Yes the content provider has been paid for an FTA in a country but not necessarily by a viewer in NZ. Granted, the FTA streaming 'broadcaster' has geo blocked the content which they would be duly obligated to do as part of the contract between content provider and the broadcaster but how far do they go and do they actually care if the content leaks unless there is a breach of their contract with the provider.

Perhaps there may be a breach of the terms of distribution of that content but have you ever seen such terms on the on demand services you can watch on TV here or on any FTA channel?

I'd agree on the other hand with streaming of paid subscriptions that is clearly a breach of the terms that you sign up when you do contract with say Sky - that is a breach of contract.

A stream of an FTA that isn't as clear cut as you'd seem to suggest.

Disc - No SKT held, I do have two paid subscriber services and I don't have a Kodi box.

[Marilyn Munroe]

Actually how do you know it isn't legal - is there a case where this has actually been tested here?

There was a case in the UK where Sky's namesake tried to sue someone who brought content off a cheaper overseas supplier. The person contested Sky's claims and won.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-17150054

Someone more knowledgeable in this field than I once remarked, "The only secure intellectual property claim in one that is not contested."

I have posted before how the new IPv6 internet protocol makes one-to-many streaming of content a far less difficult technical challenge. Content aggregators such as SKY are in danger of being by-passed by sporting codes such as rugby who may choose to stream coverage directly to subscribers.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[Entrep]

The parallel importing was to do with Netflix, where you are paying Netflix and Netflix has the licence in the US or wherever you are VPN'ing from.

Who's paying Kodi/whoever to watch the All Blacks on their Kodi box? No-one. Is there a free licence for the content? No. And if there was a free licence, did it allow for a person receiving it to then re-broadcast it worldwide? No.

And even if you are paying someone via Kodi, are they officially licensed in some capacity to have the All Blacks and to transmit it to you? No.

All illegal.

[Zaphod]

And even if you are paying someone via Kodi, are they officially licensed in some capacity to have the All Blacks and to transmit it to you? No.
All illegal.

And with no money (or consideration in general) being exchanged, it is also not a viable long-term model.

[Rep]

The parallel importing was to do with Netflix, where you are paying Netflix and Netflix has the licence in the US or wherever you are VPN'ing from.

Who's paying Kodi/whoever to watch the All Blacks on their Kodi box? No-one. Is there a free licence for the content? No. And if there was a free licence, did it allow for a person receiving it to then re-broadcast it worldwide? No.

And even if you are paying someone via Kodi, are they officially licensed in some capacity to have the All Blacks and to transmit it to you? No.

All illegal.

We can go round in circles but these IP rights are not black and white. Your position is that there is no grey but yet there is no actual case law that supports your absolute assertions.

You show me where the licence terms are for TV1, TV3, Prime or for that matter any FTA Freeview terrestrial or Satellite service and where those receiving that service
actually actively agrees not to copy, record, disseminate, reproduce, or transmit any content thereby broadcast and I will agree with you about legality because it would be a breach of contract.

But the fact is, there isn't and never has been a licence agreement with the FTAs - not disputing content from a subscription service where someone did have to actively agree to abide by the providers' terms but a plain old FTA simply doesn't have those agreements probably ever since we got rid of the annual TV licence fee.

You forget that there are transmissions of live AB games FTA particularly in Australia - simply because under antisiphoning rules they must be FTA - so you tell me where the broadcaster of an Australian FTA specifically contracts with any viewer about not passing it via a KODI box. Nah, I can't see an agreement there either.

The exclusive rights is a contract between the content provider and SKY for that exclusivity in distribution - the FTA in Australia is obliged under their rights to attempt to stop redistribution but it is not in breach for them if someone watches that content in NZ after taking reasonable steps to prevent it.

[ohpark0119]

What was with the drop? 10c drop but no announcement

[JeremyALD]

As much as I think Sky TV is in trouble over the long term, $3.60 is starting to look tempting given they have a monopoly over pay for view sport and that looks to remain for a long while yet.

[Baa_Baa]

As much as I think Sky TV is in trouble over the long term, $3.60 is starting to look tempting given they have a monopoly over pay for view sport and that looks to remain for a long while yet.

The Robot: Danger, Will Robinson!
The Robot: Warning! Warning! Alien spacecraft approaching!
Dr. Smith: We're doomed!

8722

[JeremyALD]

The Robot: Danger, Will Robinson!
The Robot: Warning! Warning! Alien spacecraft approaching!
Dr. Smith: We're doomed!

8722

Are you politely suggesting I don't try and catch this falling knife baa_baa? I have to say I'm tempted, but I shall resist for now! The interim report was pretty dismal reading.

[Baa_Baa]

Are you politely suggesting I don't try and catch this falling knife baa_baa? I have to say I'm tempted, but I shall resist for now! The interim report was pretty dismal reading.

Yes you could say that. There is a wealth of opinion on this thread, it would be worthwhile scrolling back a dozen or more pages and reading the story of SKT's woes.

Regardless of all that wisdom, consider that the chart I posted is Monthly 'closing price'. SKT has been in a severe SP down trend for almost three years, it is way below the 20 months moving average (that is an approximation of a 400 day moving average), and is now well below the last gasp 78.6% fibonacci from the GFC lows. It is a truely very seriously ugly SP chart.

JMHO, that SKT has yet to re-invent itself, while its content sourcing is still very capable, it's content distribution is woeful and as long as subscribers (who are imo being ripped off) are declining, one can only expect the FA of the company to wane also.

Eventually if they don't fix the content distribution (increasing eyeballs, wallets and revenue for the whole value chain), the content sources will seek other distributors. SKT are seriously exposed to content distribution disruption as well, as content sources can mount their own online content distribution easily at relatively low costs, cutting out the intermediary (Sky).

SKT is farming an apathetic legacy subscriber base, which is fine as long as they are growing 'online' subscribers faster than they are losing legacy 'set top box' subscribers, but they're not. At this stage it looks like SKT are broken and in a low glide to oblivion.

Even Skodafone is a dead duck, even though it is less than obvious how a long term sub-distributor (Vodafone) would have made that much difference to Sky revenues just because the ownership model changed.

There is nothing in the FA or the TA now that would encourage me to go anywhere near buying (or holding) SKT.

Just be patient, they might sort it out some day even if it's a few years away. They still have a very large legacy subscriber base, though their challenge is to retain it and convert it progressively, without sustained losses, to online distribution.

If or when SKT demonstrate a reversal of fortunes, the market will recognise that and respond with an up turn in the SP. Until then, there are better (and worse) companies to invest in and one should expect SKT to stay in a sustained SP down trend.

Until that happens, stand back, enjoy the show and learn as we watch a once proud company either destroy itself, or reinvent itself. There is no middle ground.

[JeremyALD]

Yes you could say that. There is a wealth of opinion on this thread, it would be worthwhile scrolling back a dozen or more pages and reading the story of SKT's woes.

Regardless of all that wisdom, consider that the chart I posted is Monthly 'closing price'. SKT has been in a severe SP down trend for almost three years, it is way below the 20 months moving average (that is an approximation of a 400 day moving average), and is now well below the last gasp 78.6% fibonacci from the GFC lows. It is a truely very seriously ugly SP chart.

JMHO, that SKT has yet to re-invent itself, while its content sourcing is still very capable, it's content distribution is woeful and as long as subscribers (who are imo being ripped off) are declining, one can only expect the FA of the company to wane also.

Eventually if they don't fix the content distribution (increasing eyeballs, wallets and revenue for the whole value chain), the content sources will seek other distributors. SKT are seriously exposed to content distribution disruption as well, as content sources can mount their own online content distribution easily at relatively low costs, cutting out the intermediary (Sky).

SKT is farming an apathetic legacy subscriber base, which is fine as long as they are growing 'online' subscribers faster than they are losing legacy 'set top box' subscribers, but they're not. At this stage it looks like SKT are broken and in a low glide to oblivion.

Even Skodafone is a dead duck, even though it is less than obvious how a long term sub-distributor (Vodafone) would have made that much difference to Sky revenues just because the ownership model changed.

There is nothing in the FA or the TA now that would encourage me to go anywhere near buying (or holding) SKT.

Just be patient, they might sort it out some day even if it's a few years away. They still have a very large legacy subscriber base, though their challenge is to retain it and convert it progressively, without sustained losses, to online distribution.

If or when SKT demonstrate a reversal of fortunes, the market will recognise that and respond with an up turn in the SP. Until then, there are better (and worse) companies to invest in and one should expect SKT to stay in a sustained SP down trend.

Until that happens, stand back, enjoy the show and learn as we watch a once proud company either destroy itself, or reinvent itself. There is no middle ground.

Thanks Baa that's just the rationale I needed to make my head think straight again! I'll be staying away :)

[JAX]

They still have a very large legacy subscriber base, though their challenge is to retain it and convert it progressively, without sustained losses, to online distribution.

This week, I returned my last decoder, went into the drop off point at lunchtime, there were 3 people ahead of me in a line, the guy eventually took it, he was very efficent, a process well practiced, I said are are you always busy, he said busier than we have ever been, especially in the last few months, it has gone through the roof - he went and put the old decoder literally in a pile next to other stacks in a room, of what looked like must be a hundred plus? he said SKY come and pick them off him a couple of times a week - his business collecting boxes as a sideline to the main point of the store - presumably for a fee - appeared to be booming. The boxes with all the cables etc are quite large and bulky - surprisingly so, makes me wonder where they are storing them all. Must be a large warehouse somewhere if they lost 50k customers alone last year.

If you look at all of those at the average revenue of ~85 a month and say there was a hundred there - thats 100k pa revenue lost from one place - with multiple dropoffs a week.. That would have to be a bit troubling, so yes they have a big base, but if its not growing its sure being whittled away.

The guy ahead of me in the line, as he was walking out - said. Sell your SKY Shares..... indeed.

[BlackCross]

Fans who watch Premier League matches for free using a Kodi (http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/your-kodi-box-legal-you-12383124) set-top box could be cut off following a High Court ruling.
Mr Justice Arnold approved a bid, launched by the Premier League, to block connections showing unlicensed match streams.
Britain’s four biggest broadband providers to Virgin Media, BT, Sky and Talk Talk will now be able to shut off connections hosting pirated streams.The Kodi set-top box was causing particular concern for BT and Sky which had both paid millions for licences to host Premier League games.

Free lunch coming to an end ?

[Subway]

Fans who watch Premier League matches for free using a Kodi (http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/your-kodi-box-legal-you-12383124) set-top box could be cut off following a High Court ruling.
Mr Justice Arnold approved a bid, launched by the Premier League, to block connections showing unlicensed match streams.
Britain’s four biggest broadband providers to Virgin Media, BT, Sky and Talk Talk will now be able to shut off connections hosting pirated streams.The Kodi set-top box was causing particular concern for BT and Sky which had both paid millions for licences to host Premier League games.

Free lunch coming to an end ?

Slight set back, they will just change domains/IP addresses or dedicated users will just use a VPN for a couple of quid a month

[Big Blind]

5% up today. What's going on? I've still got a small amount of this basket case and am about to pull the trigger

[JeremyALD]

5% up today. What's going on? I've still got a small amount of this basket case and am about to pull the trigger

I've always thought this was oversold, but I don't think it's worth much more than $4 so after much temptation and feedback from others have decided to sit out!

[blackcap]

I've always thought this was oversold, but I don't think it's worth much more than $4 so after much temptation and feedback from others have decided to sit out!

I got Netflix the other day $11.50 per month, I still have SKY for the sports, but I now see why SKY's days are numbered. They are on a hiding to nothing if they do not change things soon.

[ohpark0119]

Well, gotta wait and see what Plan B is about

[Bjauck]

It is a pity that Sky don't off a Skygo online sub only (at a reduced cost) whereby you could select which channels to pay for.

[blackcap]

It is a pity that Sky don't off a Skygo online sub only (at a reduced cost) whereby you could select which channels to pay for.

I'd be all for that, I only have them for the sports. Annoying to have to pay the $90 per month. But no way SKY are going to do that. That would disrupt their cash cow.

[Bjauck]

I'd be all for that, I only have them for the sports. Annoying to have to pay the $90 per month. But no way SKY are going to do that. That would disrupt their cash cow. You are probably right. However I am seriously considering cancelling my sub as there are only two channels we watch at the moment and I don't think that is worth what I pay....whereas if there was a reduced sub for skygo only or an even cheaper option for skygo limited to certain channels, I would definitely keep that sky sub. So for me, sky may have no cash coming in, unless they offer a Skygo alone service.

[Baa_Baa]

SkyGo in my experience is the suckiest flakiest most unreliable online streaming service on the planet, particularly if you are wanting to watch something popular. It is a disgrace and I think it must be designed to put set-top box subscribers off moving to digital online. Truely, it is a butt ugly pig dog. Neon is a bit better, Fanpass is much better but only for sports.

You'd have to ask yourself why Sky would have a set-top box subscriber base and THREE disparate online distribution services effectively competing against each other for eyeballs. The content is different but why three disparate online subscriber channels? Doh! Talk about confusing!

A little research and most people who subscribe to legacy Sky imo will find a way to abandon their set top boxes and their $90+ per month subscription fees, for a pay as you go online service, maybe even from Sky, that serves up just the stuff you want to watch when you want to watch it.

There's the rub, Sky seem to have the online subscription services lurking, but it's confusing and has seriously variable performance issues, so taking the plunge to advertise them in favour of the set-top box subscriber base, i.e. cannibalise the traditional channel, seems too far a leap at this stage.

Disrupt yourself or be disrupted Sky. The Choice seems simple from a consumer perspective, obviously it appears a bit more complicated if you're the provider.

[Subway]

SkyGo in my experience is the suckiest flakiest most unreliable online streaming service on the planet, particularly if you are wanting to watch something popular. It is a disgrace and I think it must be designed to put set-top box subscribers off moving to digital online. Truely, it is a butt ugly pig dog. Neon is a bit better, Fanpass is much better but only for sports.

You'd have to ask yourself why Sky would have a set-top box subscriber base and THREE disparate online distribution services effectively competing against each other for eyeballs. The content is different but why three disparate online subscriber channels? Doh! Talk about confusing!

A little research and most people who subscribe to legacy Sky imo will find a way to abandon their set top boxes and their $90+ per month subscription fees, for a pay as you go online service, maybe even from Sky, that serves up just the stuff you want to watch when you want to watch it.

There's the rub, Sky seem to have the online subscription services lurking, but it's confusing and has seriously variable performance issues, so taking the plunge to advertise them in favour of the set-top box subscriber base, i.e. cannibalise the traditional channel, seems too far a leap at this stage.

Disrupt yourself or be disrupted Sky. The Choice seems simple from a consumer perspective, obviously it appears a bit more complicated if you're the provider.

So this is a prime example of the poor management and short sighted decision making at sky.

Sky Go is terrible, however Fanpass runs on the far superior Neulion platform (the same one that Coliseum used for their premier league pass). Except subscribers can’t access Fanpass when Sky Go falls over (and this happens almost always when a decent cricket/rugby game is on). Why Sky committed to Sky Go instead of going with a superior alternative I don’t know, but years of complaints hasn’t worked. Maybe people cancelling their subscriptions might kick them into doing something productive.

[TideMan]

I cancelled Sky (via Vodafone cable) more than a year ago and have been using Kodi running on a Raspberry Pi for streaming TV and movies. But I haven't found a good reliable source for live rugby.
Then the other day a nice young man turned up at the door offering free installation satellite Sky including Sports for $39/month for 12 months, cancellable after 6 months. mmm in 6 months Super Rugby will be finished and the Lions will have come and gone, so why not? The price after 12 months jumps to $105 per month but I'll be long gone by then.

[Jay]

All I know is they keep ring up saying you are a valued customer so we are offering you Rialto (usually this Channel occasionally SoHo) for a month free and then you can cancel.
Haven't taken one up yet, the trick is that YOU have to remember to cancel it before the month is up otherwise you will be charged.

[ohpark0119]

Huge dump on friday (20m shares). Anyone know where to find who (individual/institution) bought/sold??

[Baa_Baa]

Huge dump on friday (20m shares). Anyone know where to find who (individual/institution) bought/sold??

It's bad, very bad .. big exits as the SP approaches all time lows $3.15 (which was the bottom of the GFC, so no correlation to the current self inflicted woes). TA would suggest that's a decent support, but the FA looks like it will just smash any chart supports, the company is in a nose dive staring into the abyss.

[Master98]

Huge dump on friday (20m shares). Anyone know where to find who (individual/institution) bought/sold??
https://nzx.com/companies/SKT/announcements/298570
This announcement answered your question, blackrock one day trading volume was over 19m, end up overall holding increase from 10.311% to 12.287%.

[ohpark0119]

Ah yea saw this. Thanks :)

[JeremyALD]

Hmmm Sky and Vodafone challenging decision. SP up 6% on that news.

[ohpark0119]

Hmmm Sky and Vodafone challenging decision. SP up 6% on that news.

Maybe that's why blackrock increased their holding. Never know when they gonna dump it though. They may have heard the news before and increased the holding.

[Master98]

Last Friday 99.9% whole day trading volume was contributed by one trader-BlackRock(sell and buy), sp was be manuipulated.

[Subway]

Maybe that's why blackrock increased their holding. Never know when they gonna dump it though. They may have heard the news before and increased the holding.

Depends whether blackrock are taking an increased position for their ishares ETF's based on the index position of SKT, might not be an active management decision

[BlackCross]

Harris and Kiltearn also buying...

[ohpark0119]

Harris and Kiltearn also buying...

Could it be vodafone group buying backdoor through those guys?

[SilverBack]

Anyone else see this ("Sky, Vodafone To Push Ahead With NZ Merger")? Fills in some background around the SKT announcement.
www.sharecafe.com.au/sharecafe.asp?a=AV&ai=43522 (http://www.sharecafe.com.au/sharecafe.asp?a=AV&ai=43522)

[xafalcon]

Anyone else see this ("Sky, Vodafone To Push Ahead With NZ Merger")? Fills in some background around the SKT announcement.
www.sharecafe.com.au/sharecafe.asp?a=AV&ai=43522 (http://www.sharecafe.com.au/sharecafe.asp?a=AV&ai=43522)

This path most likely akin to scoring an own goal

Ignoring the ComCom (and hence the government), is asking for regulation IMO

[BlackCross]

If they're offering Spark and 2degrees a reasonable deal (even if Spark refuses to take it) then I think it will be difficult for the commission to block it...and if they do SKT/VOD will probably go ahead anyway.
Makes sense - ..I don't think the fact that BskyB do broadband as well as programmes in the UK is a problem over there. And if Spark want the All Blacks games they can bid for them.

[Baa_Baa]

No more daily or weekly FanPass! I giant step backwards for the online streaming service. Utilisation of FanPass will drop off the cliff, imho.


"We wanted to let you know about some changes we’re making to the passes available on Fan Pass.

We wanted Fan Pass to give Kiwis the freedom to dip in and out of sport by offering short-term flexible passes. However, sports rights aren’t cheap and it’s just not stacking up for us as much as we’ve tried to make it work. So we’ve had to make the following changes which will affect you:

- From 24th May, you’ll no longer be able to get a Day or Week pass on Fan Pass.

- The cost of the Month pass will increase from $55.99 per month to $99.99 per month from 24th May.

- We’ll be introducing a 6 Month pass which will be a one-off payment of $329.99. It’s a big payment upfront but it still works out as less than $2 a day which is pretty good value. That could give you the entire All Blacks Season from kick off to the final whistle.

If none of these changes are your cup of tea, SKY have got an offer where you can join SKY with no joining fee and get a $150 account credit on a 6 month Basic contract. If you want further information, call SKY on 0800 800 759.

The team at Fan Pass will still be working hard on the side line to make sure you’ve got a great sport streaming service to watch SKY Sport 1-4 and Pay-Per-View Events.

Thanks

The team at FAN PASS


Emphasis added. Off with the nose to spite the face. Boo Sky Boo.

[blackcap]

No more daily or weekly FanPass! I giant step backwards for the online streaming service. Utilisation of FanPass will drop off the cliff, imho.


"We wanted to let you know about some changes we’re making to the passes available on Fan Pass.

We wanted Fan Pass to give Kiwis the freedom to dip in and out of sport by offering short-term flexible passes. However, sports rights aren’t cheap and it’s just not stacking up for us as much as we’ve tried to make it work. So we’ve had to make the following changes which will affect you:

- From 24th May, you’ll no longer be able to get a Day or Week pass on Fan Pass.

- The cost of the Month pass will increase from $55.99 per month to $99.99 per month from 24th May.

- We’ll be introducing a 6 Month pass which will be a one-off payment of $329.99. It’s a big payment upfront but it still works out as less than $2 a day which is pretty good value. That could give you the entire All Blacks Season from kick off to the final whistle.

If none of these changes are your cup of tea, SKY have got an offer where you can join SKY with no joining fee and get a $150 account credit on a 6 month Basic contract. If you want further information, call SKY on 0800 800 759.

The team at Fan Pass will still be working hard on the side line to make sure you’ve got a great sport streaming service to watch SKY Sport 1-4 and Pay-Per-View Events.

Thanks

The team at FAN PASS


Emphasis added. Off with the nose to spite the face. Boo Sky Boo.

I dont get it. If the monthly cost goes to $99.99 would it not be cheaper to get the normal SKY with HD and all the other channels on top of that? (I currently pay $94 per month) for that. Makes no sense at all. How can I short SKY.

[JAX]

I dont get it. If the monthly cost goes to $99.99 would it not be cheaper to get the normal SKY with HD and all the other channels on top of that? (I currently pay $94 per month) for that. Makes no sense at all. How can I short SKY.

Why offer Fanpass at all it is the question - as you say its basically the same deal. The attraction was just paying for the days you wanted. Putting that aside, the $329 option is only $54 a month - so thats the same price as current - and a lot cheaper than month to month - but you have to commit to 6 months and they get the cash up front.

I would guess its all about this - I think they have sat around and thought, We would rather lose the occasional daily fan pass revenue to get people onto a 6month committed payment with the bonus of the cash in advance which is basically our old school existing model in disquise. As we all know, outside of whatever SKY offer - local sports fans have few other options so will most likely just suck it up.

[Entrep]

No longer content with just sitting on their hands while people get their content elsewhere, they've decided to actually go backwards now. lol

[JeremyALD]

Sky wonder why they have no customer loyality then they do things like this

[cyclist]

Funnily enough, I was looking forward to noting that for the very first time in my life I have given some money to Sky - for a fanpass during America's Cup coverage. They have just exceeded my pricing squeal point however.

[blackcap]

Funnily enough, I was looking forward to noting that for the very first time in my life I have given some money to Sky - for a fanpass during America's Cup coverage. They have just exceeded my pricing squeal point however.

I really do understand why so many people, including friends of mine do the "free" streaming thing. So many providers outside of NZ so even though Duco (boxing example) squeal they can do nothing about it. A mate of mine (professional) pretty much streams everything he and his wife watch for free. Sure quality is a little less but there are some pretty good ones out there. That includes sports and movies/series. SKY will not last another 5 years with their current model.

[Zaphod]

No one - Sky, Netflix, etc. - can compete with "free" services. But let's face it, those "free" streamed services are being fed from customers who have legitimate access to the content.

What part do the professional sports play in all of this? How much are they charging for rights? I suspect a very pretty penny.

We are now also seeing groups hacking streaming providers and attempting to extract ransoms (e.g. last week's Netflix v The Dark Overlord incident). How much will this cost the new players in the industry, and what is the likely impact on subscription fees?

The whole industry is in a state of turmoil.

Time to watch less TV.

[777]

How is that when you get a pass this is what you get on your statement...

Fan Pass Nz London W30Rg Gbr
$19.99

How much is Sky NZ actually getting?

[hardt]

Sky have waited far too long to get a move on, Fellet does not fill me with much optimism about the future of Sky.. as great as he is, I dont see him leading the way forward for Sky for the next 5-10 years.

[Baa_Baa]

The thing that doesn't make sense, to me at least, is that they're saying openly that the FanPass service isn't working out ... that has to mean it's not making a profit.

But the response seems weird to cut out the daily and weekly passes, justified obliquely by saying sports distributions cost us a lot money and we reckon you numbnuts will fall for ... a denial of short term subscriptions to watch a game or a week of skysports, by paying an even higher monthly rate than our set-top-box subscribers, without access to any of the other Sky movies and 50+ other channels? What! Have they got rocks in their head? Who approves this sh1t?

The attraction of FanPass is to online streaming viewers who are prepared to pay for a quick fix (daily) or a week of sports, and previously until this price rort, a month of sports. Denying those subscriptions immediately disenfranchises current Fanpass users, and eliminates the revenue. Whoa, incredible isn't it?

So it looks like a gamble, or self inflicted suicide by a thousand cuts, on their stumbling bumbling entry into online streaming services.

What makes more sense would be to create an array of subscription types, and offer up all Sky channels online (using the Fanpass platform which actually works well). For example, pay for a game, or a movie, or a show, pay for a week of anything, or two weeks, or a month, or buy 3 months or 6 months, or a year. Feast on our content and here's the price.

But no. They've bascially reverted to the set-top-box subscription model, with higher costs and fewer services, and are trying to pitch that to the fast paced, low attention span, click here click there, internet viewer. Seems an invitation to the illegal viewers, who don't pay a cent, but won't be denied their game of footy.

It's doomed I tell ya, doomed! Seems to me they're the numbnuts.

An ex-Fanpass subscriber.
BAA

[Baa_Baa]

Sky TV slashes Fan Pass sports service

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/92271651/sky-tv-slashes-fan-pass-sports-service

[Subway]

Fellet needs to go, immediately.

[maknz]

What a ridiculous move. It's almost like they're deliberately trying to drive their customers away to the free streams.

[traineeinvestor]

Unless they can come up with a new business model, they I don't see how they avoid going the way of the video rental stores.

[Hoop]

Writing about Numbnuts...maybe the NZ stock Exchange should issue a "please explain" letter why the SKT share price closed 1.4% up today when the overall market fell 0.2%...

[Cricketfan]

People seem to be in agreement that Sky's days are numbered, so why are people still happy to invest? I would've expected the sp to have plummeted in recent times. Are people after the dividends in the short term? Or do the shareholders disagree with the general sentiment out there?

[Baa_Baa]

People seem to be in agreement that Sky's days are numbered, so why are people still happy to invest? I would've expected the sp to have plummeted in recent times. Are people after the dividends in the short term? Or do the shareholders disagree with the general sentiment out there?

Good question, but what part of this is not the SP plummeting? Check out the monthly chart approaching all time lows. Looks like a plummet to me, albeit in slow mo.

8828

SKT is is deep sh1t, it is going south big time and has been for what is now a long time. After a long and successful reign with outstanding profits and dividends consistent with a monopoly supplier, Shareholders sometimes need to wake up to whether they are the frog that is being boiled, slowly cooked ending up dead in a frog soup.

[JeremyALD]

I've never seen so much backlash on Social Media for a change in pricing before. They have really pissed people off. Also they should of thought that most people subscribing to Fan Pass would be younger, more like to stream and more likely to post on Social. So glad I didn't invest, thanks Roger for talking some sense into me with this one.

[Cricketfan]

Good question, but what part of this is not the SP plummeting? Check out the monthly chart approaching all time lows. Looks like a plummet to me, albeit in slow mo.





It's dropping, but why would people buy at today's price if they agreed with the majority that Sky will be out of business in a few years and the SP will just keep dropping to zero?

[JeremyALD]

It's dropping, but why would people buy at today's price if they agreed with the majority that Sky will be out of business in a few years and the SP will just keep dropping to zero?

I think people realise it's going to be a slow death and they are still (currently) a very profitable business. They still have a monopoly on sports rights so they have a few years left to reenergise their business model before they start to lose their hold on sporting rights. With strong leadership and a new direction to the digital age the SP would present value, but sadly they are dearly lacking in both departments.

[martinchnz1]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11850847

Clasping for money.

[JAX]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11850847

Clasping for money.

Probably a good idea they save up as much as they can they are going to need it. Come 2020 when the Rugby rights are up - it all looks bad. Firstly the Rugby guys will be in an incredibly strong negotiating position knowing how desperate they will be to keep it. Then all sorts of others will probably take a ping at it to steal the market - or knock sky over - maybe even the likes of their old mates at Voda, but seems likely at least Spark will have a go, which will drive up the prices - when surely the prices SKY can charge the public are already maxed which will kill the profit margins - and then finally going by international trends - they rights are now being split between Satellite and Streaming, meaning they might actually end up paying the same but losing the online rights to someone else like a Spark or something - which will really hurt as they have proven time and time again competition is not something they can deal with. Streaming is getting to be a big deal now, what will be it like 3 years from now - SKY had the chance of a massive headstart in that tech which will inevitably be the standard in the next decades - but they are throwing it away.

At the very least even if they execute flawlessly and lock up the sports into themselves and convince people to keep the archaic decoders in their houses (and when does Sky ever do anything flawlessly) they will simply end up paying a lot more for the same. So yeah, all not looking so good.

[Entrep]

The thing with all this is that SKY produces the games via OSB which it purchased several years back (one of the most brilliant moves Fellet has made). OSB has several production trucks costing tens of millions of dollars each. No one else in NZ is equipped to produce the games. Broadcasting them via OTT if you have the feed is the easy bit. It would take a ton of capital to setup a rival production company. Then there's experience, commentators, etc. They are actually in a stronger position than most realise.

[Baa_Baa]

The thing with all this is that SKY produces the games via OSB which it purchased several years back (one of the most brilliant moves Fellet has made). OSB has several production trucks costing tens of millions of dollars each. No one else in NZ is equipped to produce the games. Broadcasting them via OTT if you have the feed is the easy bit. It would take a ton of capital to setup a rival production company. Then there's experience, commentators, etc. They are actually in a stronger position than most realise.

In the context of Sky changing the subscription model, that says their costs stay the same but they take an immediate hit on revenue by stopping the daily and weekly subscriptions. This gaff imo to move online subscribers to the set top box subscription model, is a poorly thought out move. Sky need to show its shareholders how they forecast a successful outcome by reducing revenue and sustaining costs.

[bucko]

I feel like Sky should partner with United Airlines and Pepsi somehow..

Aggressively pursuing those who illegally streamed the Parker fight the same week they made it harder for people to view their sport offerings online, not the greatest PR exercise.

Looks like a dying monopoly desperately trying to hold on IMO....Adapt or Die

[Cricketfan]

I feel like Sky should partner with United Airlines and Pepsi somehow..


Aggressively pursuing those who illegally streamed the Parker fight the same week they made it harder for people to view their sport offerings online, not the greatest PR exercise.



I think Sky is the most-hated company in NZ, and I don't think they give a crap about PR anymore!

[Sideshow Bob]

The thing with all this is that SKY produces the games via OSB which it purchased several years back (one of the most brilliant moves Fellet has made). OSB has several production trucks costing tens of millions of dollars each. No one else in NZ is equipped to produce the games. Broadcasting them via OTT if you have the feed is the easy bit. It would take a ton of capital to setup a rival production company. Then there's experience, commentators, etc. They are actually in a stronger position than most realise.

I suppose the only thing is if a lot of that cost and set-up is geared towards broadcasting via satellite or standard TV -rather than via the interweb. Depends how deep someone like Spark's pockets are. And with staff, commentators etc, if Sky lose the rights, then those people lose their jobs, and the new broadcaster will be hiring.

[Baa_Baa]

I suppose the only thing is if a lot of that cost and set-up is geared towards broadcasting via satellite or standard TV -rather than via the interweb.

The cost to create content and broadcast it is already sunk cost, whether to satellite or internet. Sky have simply, and stupidly, changed the subscription model, eliminating short term viewer revenue on some strange monopolistic idea that online sports fans will revert to paying a monthly fee that is more than the set-top-box subscribers, or a yearly fee. Good luck with that.

Fellet even went as far as likening Sky to Netfliks by suggesting a monthly fee model (only) is a legitimate response to market. Idiot has no idea about internet distribution, not a skerrick of credibility. Netfliks is about $13 a month all you can eat. You can watch movies 24x7 and not pay a cent more. Lightbox as well. Sky has lost the plot, they have disenfranchised existing short term Fanpass subscribers and set themselves up for an immediate revenue hiding and massive uncertainty around future online subscription revenues.

Who hires these product marketing numpty's? Hey Sky boss I got a great idea, let's kill off an existing revenue stream by shutting down short term Fanpass subscriptions, and those numb nut subscribers are so addicted to Sky Sports that they'll sign up to a monthly charge greater than ordering a set top box and the truely no hoper addicts will pay us a fortune for an annual subscription. Weeping.

Good grief. Sky really flushed the baby with the bathwater on this one. Watch the revenue closely shareholders, it's going down down down and the expense line isn't changing, not a bit.

[Baa_Baa]

Oh, and watch how they manipulate the subscriber statistics, we all know they're in free-fall for the set-top-box subscribers, but see if you can figure out whether they're incorporating the internet subscribers as well, cos those are propping up legacy subscribers (albeit not sustainably) but now those online subscriber numbers just got slashed by killing off the daily and weekly Fanpass.

[JeremyALD]

Oh, and watch how they manipulate the subscriber statistics, we all know they're in free-fall for the set-top-box subscribers, but see if you can figure out whether they're incorporating the internet subscribers as well, cos those are propping up legacy subscribers (albeit not sustainably) but now those online subscriber numbers just got slashed by killing off the daily and weekly Fanpass.

I'm very interested in this.

To be honest I think they'll get a spike in subscriber's now or at least dulling of the subscriber drop (in their next report). They just did an offer with $150 credit for a 6 month contract. A lot of people will do that for the Lions tour now they can't get fanpass at a decent price. Most of those people will then cancel in 6 months time. Sky is being extremely short sighted in everything they do. Even Neon is an expensive flop.

[bull....]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11850847

Clasping for money.

totally and big negative customer relations just makes you want to give them the two fingered salute.

[bucko]

A Sky TV insider tells NBR its Fanpass service has fewer than 10,000 active users – and indicates it’s well below the company’s goals.
The insider says Sky’s aim is to keep hold the line on traditional subs while growing the online, no-contract services Neon and Fanpass. That hasn’t been happening.
With Sky's first-half 2017 result, total subscriber numbers fell (https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/sky-tv-first-half-profit-falls-32-b-199826) 5.2% to 816,135 and profit fell as additions to Fanpass and Neon failed to offset those who deserted their decoder (the company did not break down numbers for each service).
https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/sky-insider-talks-fanpass-numbers


Copyright NBR. Cannot be reproduced without permission.
Read more: https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/sky-insider-talks-fanpass-numbers
Follow us: @TheNBR (https://twitter.com/TheNBR) on Twitter | NBROnline (https://www.facebook.com/NBROnline/) on Facebook

[shonen knife]

I purchased the day pass 3-4 times in the last year @ $15 a pop just to watch a single Super Rugby match. I thought that $15 was an insane price just to watch one match, but I had no interested in buying a more "economical" weekly or monthly price and then having to watch things that I am not interested in just to get my "money's worth".

I would never purchase a monthly or six-monthly pass, so they have lost my whimsical purchases to the local pub. I would assume that the margin on a day pass would have been huge, so I really don't get this short-sighted decision. Maybe they will bring these options back "due to customer demand" after the Lions tour...

[Entrep]

Maybe they will bring these options back "due to customer demand" after the Lions tour...
I think you nailed it right there buddy.

[Marilyn Munroe]

I have just received a telephone call from a marketer pushing "Fiber TV" which includes access to SKY Sports.

I didn't ask if it was a SKY product but assume if sports comes bundled it is.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

Edit: It may not be a SKY product. If you go to the support page on their web site and hover your mouse over the postal address link the alt text shows an address in suburban Christchurch.

[Entrep]

What's the website? Sounds like someone selling an Android box with illegal sports access. Wonder how they got your info too?

[unhuman]

Judging by the crude website def not a sky product.

[Rep]

Judging by the crude website def not a sky product.

And based on their use of trademarks, I'd suggest that a letter from SKT's solicitors is about to be served.

[mcdongle]

Sky sports uk

[bucko]

The website...it...hurts my eyes

Sounds like a customised Kodi TV Box, Kodi is an open source bit of software that searches the web for streaming links that quite a few people are starting to use.

Some guys in London were recently arrested for selling these customised tv boxes

[blackcap]

Is this one one everyone is talking about?
http://fibretvnz.co.nz/

That would get shut down pretty quickly would it not?

[BlackCross]

Is this one one everyone is talking about?
http://fibretvnz.co.nz/

That would get shut down pretty quickly would it not?

Now illegal in Europe (with *stringent fines and jail time) but maybe not here (yet)?

*After a number of Kodi arrests (http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/765125/Kodi-box-crackdown-five-arrest-illegal-streaming-Sky-sports-movies) were made last month a man accused of selling "fully loaded" boxes has now been fined a massive £250,000.Malcolm Mayes, from Hartlepool, sold IPTV boxes, sometimes referred to as ‘Kodi’ boxes or ‘Android’ boxes, which had been modified to allow the users to freely view content that should otherwise be paid for.

[Stumpynuts]

Is this one one everyone is talking about?
http://fibretvnz.co.nz/

That would get shut down pretty quickly would it not?


Do yourself a favour and go onto Aliexpress - You can search 'Android box' or 'IPTV' and you'll get thousands or different boxes, majority of them are Kodi in one form or another.

I just recently upgraded and use the hybrid box linked below ie. It has dual TV tuners for both types of aerial - Sky Satellite and UHF fuzzy aerial as well as the media player components.
No need to switch between HDMI channels, you just use the one remote to switch between the different programs from within the box ie. freeview/KODI/Netflix/Internet browser.
You can also connect a portable hard drive and it can record NZ freeview for up to and hour delay, pre-program daily/weekly/monthly scheduled recording.
Using these tv boxes are far superior products to using chromecast and the likes IMO, as the boxes have a direct power source.

https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/ACEMAX-KIII-PRO-DVB-S2-DVB-T-T2-Combo-Amlogic-S912-OCTA-Core-64bit-4K-CCCAM/521728_32787308219.html

[BlackCross]

In the UK it's Trading Standards who brought the cases and it's for breach of copyright. Not sure whether that applies in NZ or whether Trading Standards here would see it as part of their job?

[Rep]

The NBR reports that Sky is taking action against streaming box providers using Kodi with their lawyers serving a 'cease and desist' letter for breach of copyright to Matamata based 'MyBox' provider selling a Kodi Box and SKT being successful in getting the 'MyBox' Facebook page taken down.

This article is behind the NBR paywall:
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/sky-tv-forces-takedown-my-box-nzs-facebook-page-cg-p-203034

This is going to be 'whack-a-mole' stuff for SKT...

[unhuman]

Yes, and that approach worked well for the music and film industry...

Sky need to be embracing change, not fruitlessly trying to fight it.

[Entrep]

Yes, and that approach worked well for the music and film industry...

Sky need to be embracing change, not fruitlessly trying to fight it.

The Kodi box providers are taking the piss and ripping customers off themselves however. It's like someone charging you to access Napster back then, that wouldn't have washed. The Kodi boxes are sold on the basis of pirated content themselves.

[unhuman]

Yes, you cannot condone the actions of these people. However the fact that a market for it exists shows that Skys business model is outdated and that are fighting this in a way that has never worked and will not work. All it does is create more bad will for a company that already has a poor PR brand.

The answer to music pirates was iTunes, not suing Napster.

The answer to film / TV pirates was Netflix, not suing people for torrenting.

The answer to pirating sports streams is...? Fanpass was a partial answer due to its flexibility. To remove it and hope to force people back into locked in expensive contracts when alternatives - albeit questionable in their legality and usability - exist seems shortsighted.

Disclaimer not a SKT holder.

[macduffy]

But is there a "cheap" answer so far as sport is concerned though? Isn't there too much money involved - in sportsmens/womens' retainers and wages; transfer fees; sponsorship costs; venue overheads; production costs etc - for top sport to be anything but expensive for screen viewers?

Disc: Another "not a SKT holder".

[blackcap]

But is there a "cheap" answer so far as sport is concerned though? Isn't there too much money involved - in sportsmens/womens' retainers and wages; transfer fees; sponsorship costs; venue overheads; production costs etc - for top sport to be anything but expensive for screen viewers?

Disc: Another "not a SKT holder".

It may be a case of above said players and hangers on having to take a paycut?

[cyclist]

It may be a case of above said players and hangers on having to take a paycut?

I suspect that will happen as this all plays out over time. It wasn't that many years ago that the All Blacks (for example) were a bunch of guys that took some time off work every now and then so they could play a game of Rugby.

[macduffy]

Sorry guys and gals but that horse has well and truly bolted. Sport is an industry now and no amount of nostalgic wishing is going to change that. More's the pity.

:(

[Baa_Baa]

The answer to pirating sports streams is...? Fanpass was a partial answer due to its flexibility. To remove it and hope to force people back into locked in expensive contracts when alternatives - albeit questionable in their legality and usability - exist seems shortsighted.

That's right inhuman, imho, Sky are taking a very risky gamble (calculated?) that by removing the option of short term online subscriptions to sports content through Fanpass, and only retaining longer term subscriptions, in the hope that subscribers will either revert to set-top-box subscriptions or pay a premium to view online. Well good luck with that!

What they don't seem to understand is that the population of potential online subscribers is vast and growing, but it's also transient, short on interest and patience, and used to getting what they want, when they want, online, right now. Just what they want, nothing more, immediately.

So far since their disastrous decision, there's been a few weeks of footy games and lots of other sports, so Sky will already have decent evidence as to whether their gamble is paying off. If only they reported subscribers by channel, shareholders would eventually have some inkling as to whether the 'strategy' was working. But they treat shareholders like mushrooms, in the dark and fed on BS.

All the while, their Fanpass costs of distribution remain the same while they've compromised the revenue side. I think it is a shortsighted and cynical move not inconsistent with a monopoly supplier who naively assume that their entire distribution model cannot be disrupted into oblivion. It will certainly spawn a whole new and much larger wave of illegal distribution.

I like the reference someone made to 'whack the mole', as trying to battle this illegal reaction is also naive whereas taking the opposite stance, that providing gratuitous access to content that is quick, easy and cheap, anytime, anywhere, without contract for extended content, would open the distribution model and make it far less worthwhile to trying to subvert it, or work around it illegally.

All this angst for denying $14 bucks to watch a game or a week of sports, and to come back time and time again with their $14 bucks .. ad infinitum, for life! Sky have rocks in their head and should fire the morons who put this awful product strategy into play, disenfranchising a growing online sports viewing customer base, opening up an illegal online distribution tsunami, and compromising the future of their brand and shareholder wealth.

I could go on.

Disc: own SKT? you must be joking!

[minimoke]

In the meantime i have an app with lightbox and a tv with chromecast and can cast all manner of stuff to the telly. Why do i need a set top box. A sky app and a couple of bucks for a super rugby match and id probably be in.

[Entrep]

I agree killing Fan Pass has to be one of the craziest moves they've made (or haven't made) yet. Classic timing with the Lions Tour and no doubt seen as a way to get some new subscribers on a contract until they limp to the next big event.

[cyclist]

I suspect that will happen as this all plays out over time. It wasn't that many years ago that the All Blacks (for example) were a bunch of guys that took some time off work every now and then so they could play a game of Rugby.


Sorry guys and gals but that horse has well and truly bolted. Sport is an industry now and no amount of nostalgic wishing is going to change that. More's the pity.

:(

I'm sure you are right, but I think something will need to change.

There is a poster on this thread (https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=106&topicid=214299)on Geekzone called "Talkiet" with some very interesting perspectives. Basically suggesting that the current sport funding model relies on cross subsidisation from other subscibers (e.g. those on the basic package I guess), and that a "pay-per-sporting code" model would likely be very expensive for those who cared about a particular sport. Have a read of post #1776313 5-May-2017 14:17 on page 1 of that thread for an overview.

I am forming the view that it is a broken system. Consumers only want to pay for what they are interested in, but the embedded costs in each sporting code are too high to support that model.

[macduffy]

Thanks, cyclist. "Talkiet" is pretty much on the mark with that, IMO.

[Rep]

I'm sure you are right, but I think something will need to change.

There is a poster on this thread (https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=106&topicid=214299)on Geekzone called "Talkiet" with some very interesting perspectives. Basically suggesting that the current sport funding model relies on cross subsidisation from other subscibers (e.g. those on the basic package I guess), and that a "pay-per-sporting code" model would likely be very expensive for those who cared about a particular sport. Have a read of post #1776313 5-May-2017 14:17 on page 1 of that thread for an overview.

I am forming the view that it is a broken system. Consumers only want to pay for what they are interested in, but the embedded costs in each sporting code are too high to support that model.

The big proviso to the above is the inclusion of sporting codes into the current broadcast model whether it's Pay TV (SKT) or Free To Air (FTA).

For example, when the America's Cup was on FTA - effectively because FTAs don't collect money from the consumers, the funding came from the advertisers who pay to have the commercials run on the network (and not necessarily those being shown during the telecast either but that's another post) and whoever provides funding to the network e.g. potentially taxpayers in the case of TVNZ via NZOnAir etc. It's not a particularly efficient model for the folk paying for the advertising either as you can't necessarily target the advertising to the folk you actually want to walk in your door/jump on your website and/or hand you some money so there's a lot of cross subsidies.

The flipside is that if SKT and FTA don't want to screen your code because they don't think it's worth their while, then it's hard to get sponsorship for your code, harder to have the best players retained locally and harder to attract people to your code in the first place. You could be the world's best speedway bike rider but you won't make much here because apart from a small hard core who will sit in the stands, no one will see you.

If you can figure out how to broadcast your sport via the internet in a professional and inexpensive way then that open opportunities esp if you disintermediate SKT or the FTA's but if you do get enough eyeballs, then someone like SKT or an FTA will pay to broadcast your code but they probably won't allow you to continue to distribute digitally. But you'd probably whore yourself because it's easy to take a wedge of cash on a regular basis than be subject to the whims of folk who pay per view - ask the ARU, they are in lose-lose because they don't want to cut a Super Rugby side but are addicted to the cash from the SANZAAR Super and Rugby Championship to stay afloat.

SKT also want to get that regular wedge of cash rather than be at the whim of folk who might or might not want to "tune in" depending on the interest... so it's a double edged sword. Having that mySky box at home is still sufficiently a lazy enough option for most of their subscriber base and they won't go broke in the short term if they sit on their hands because they continue to lock up content. It's mainly how long and how much money they throw at whacking the moles against the likes of MyBox, how much inertia the codes who are addicted to their cash continue to have and how long all the subscribers keep putting money in their jar.

[Entrep]

Interesting reading about this new "threat" to SKY - https://www.facebook.com/groups/1194637360632303/ and http://apps.employment.govt.nz/determinations/PDF/2017/2017_NZERA_Auckland_28.pdf. This "press release" or whatever you want to call it is also quite entertaining http://mediapa.co.nz/power-pr-ecommerce-shown-box-nz-takes-sky-television/ - yes, apparently Media PA is a real company with real clients, but they've chosen to take on this person (who is clearly ripping off Kiwis that don't know any better) as a client and write press releases that are complete fantasy.

Would be great if the Herald or NBR had some decent journalists.

[ohpark0119]

Abou to break 52wk low. Wouldnt be a surprise to see the share drop after vfnz merger.

[hardt]

Abou to break 52wk low. Wouldnt be a surprise to see the share drop after vfnz merger.

Why do you think it would drop?

If they can get through and merge... oh boy, the sp is going to move like a rocket's been lodged in between Fellets kookoo...

[xafalcon]

Latest sign-up program for Sky TV in Hamilton. Sky Basic + Sky Sports (incl BeIn Sports channels) + MySky box + Installation (if needed) = $9pw.

Smacks of desperation to me

But what a perfect way to infuriate existing subscribers

[sb9]

Latest sign-up program for Sky TV in Hamilton. Sky Basic + Sky Sports (incl BeIn Sports channels) + MySky box + Installation (if needed) = $9pw.

Smacks of desperation to me

But what a perfect way to infuriate existing subscribers

Gosh, that's really crawling on four legs for new business. Sure to upset current subscribers....