SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[blackcap]

I'll accept part of your "fuddy-duddy" argument but not all of it.

To be honest, part of the fuddy-duddy argument would have to be aimed at my wife - she LIKES the fact that you push one button to turn on the TV, another button to turn on the Sky, and that's it. It's simple; it works. If she has to start firing up Netflix to watch one series, Amazon Prime to watch something else, Lightbox for a movie, TVNZ Ondemand for yet something else she just won't want to know.

Keep in mind also, that Sky still has the monopoly on UK TV, and the programs on there appeal to a lot of people. AFAIK there is no LEGAL alternative to watch UK TV here in NZ.

For me its not even the fuddy duddy argument. I do not mind paying SKY $98 per month for the sports. If I had to pay NBA.com, ESPN, Spark Sport, EPL, ATP.com and cricket (when they start streaming) all a different subscription package it would be way more expensive to watch my sports. I do not begrudge SKY the bundling they have done. I believe un-bundling in the end will cost the consumer a heck of a lot more and leave them with less choice for $ than the past model. That said, SKY should have come to the party earlier with online content and all available at once (ie like Netflix)

[Sideshow Bob]

For me its not even the fuddy duddy argument. I do not mind paying SKY $98 per month for the sports. If I had to pay NBA.com, ESPN, Spark Sport, EPL, ATP.com and cricket (when they start streaming) all a different subscription package it would be way more expensive to watch my sports. I do not begrudge SKY the bundling they have done. I believe un-bundling in the end will cost the consumer a heck of a lot more and leave them with less choice for $ than the past model. That said, SKY should have come to the party earlier with online content and all available at once (ie like Netflix)

Fully agree. Unbundling will in the end make it difficult/costly for the consumer.

The problem for Sky is that they became fat, lazy and arrogant over the years with the lack of competition, and 'hated' by their customers for it. Fellet stayed waaaay too long and thought they were immune to competition, even when it did finally come.

Apparently they are talking about the rights to the next Rugby World Cup now. Wonder if Sparks little hiccup at the weekend impacts on that at all.

[mistaTea]

Apparently they are talking about the rights to the next Rugby World Cup now. Wonder if Sparks little hiccup at the weekend impacts on that at all.

I think Sky were in the drivers seat anyway for future rugby rights, including the next RWC. This fiasco from Spark might be the final nail in the coffin for anyone at Sanzaar, NZ Rugby etc who may have been keen to look at their offering.

Even if Spark managed to stream without any issues, this is still a huge commercial failure to them. And many Kiwi's have missed out on live coverage.

The biggest streaming volumes Spark were likely to get was the AB v SA match on Saturday. The rest of the AB pool matches won't draw massive crowds, and the AB presumed QF, both semis and the final will all be free live on TV1.

So the biggest volume they will likely get is 132,000 subscribers. Two issues with that:

1. It's probably fair to say that a significant chunk of that number got the tournament pass for free, if not the majority. So who knows how much revenue they generated for this tournament. If they paid $13M (as reported) for the tournament, they probably spent that again at least on their streaming platform, plus paying for the TVNZ coverage in Japan etc etc. So their sport offering has not been able to stand up on its own feet, and Spark shareholders are having to subsidise this project with profits from their core telco business.

2. Even though they were giving the tournament pass away for free in the end (to those who signed up for phone or internet plans), they could still only get 132,000 business and residential premises to sign up. If we look at the last AB match Sky broadcast (against Aussie), between Sky TV decoders and Sky Sport NOW...Sky had damn near 600,000 paying customers watch their live broadcast. The biggest rugby tournament in the world that Kiwi's absolutely love, and Spark could only get maybe one fifth of the audience Sky was able to. That is a terrible outcome for New Zealanders.

If I was negotiating sport broadcasting rights right now, I would think that Sky is the obvious choice. It was ironic that Sparks failure to make the new 'way of the future' streaming a success, meant they had to fall back to trusty Satellite on the Duke channel to save what was left of their bacon. I don't have access to Duke, so had to persevere with a fuzzy picture on Spark Sport, but from what I gather the satellite broadcast was perfect uninterrupted HD.

[Bobdn]

You make some excellent points, mistaTea.

Another interesting article - this guy wasn't taking any chances. The RWC was made available to commercial Sky customers through a pop up channel, I understand.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/sport/rugb...ort/ar-AAHEh9N

[mistaTea]

For some time now, I have maintained that Sky TV's satellite platform remains a competitive advantage, not a disadvantage.

Sure, they do need to sort out their pricing to ensure customers feel they are getting more value than they are paying for, but in terms of the actual platform...it remains the most reliable method of broadcasting HD live sport from Cape Reinga to Bluff.

Sky Sport NOW will certainly grow in popularity over time, but having a significant satellite base means that Sky can shift to streaming as a process of evolution, not revolution. While internet technology is still improving, Sky will continue to be able to reach large audiences and carry a much smaller risk of a major meltdown. And New Zealanders have choice with them - if they don't like the reliability of streaming they can get a satellite Sport package for $55/month. If they are 'new age', have fibre and keen to take a Sport-only streaming option, Sky have them covered with a $39.99 offering. Customer's aren't forced one way or the other, it's entirely up to them.

[Marilyn Munroe]

As an old old poet wrote about a far distant mythical land;

"The old order changeth yielding place to the new."

Even if Sparks streaming of a major sports event turns out to be no more than the flash of distant guns on the horizon it is a portent of change.

As things progress streaming of video content will become more accepted and common. Here is a list of things I think will assist this change;

The high rate of penetration and uptake of domestic fibre in NZ,

The wider adoption of the IPV6 internet protocol and its built-in multicast options, and

The new sophisticated and bandwidth friendly AV1 video codec.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[blackcap]

Another downside to streaming is that the picture has a huge delay.

At the pub you can be watching your fav game. You get google notification that your team has scored a try. 40 seconds later you see the try on the screen. Half the pub is yahooing 40 seconds before said try and those without google wonder what is going to happen in 40 seconds.

Sky was slower but only by about 5-6 seconds from real time.

Streaming tennis at the US Open is getting a lot slower too.

Analogue is still the best for real time live commentary.

[mistaTea]

As an old old poet wrote about a far distant mythical land;

"The old order changeth yielding place to the new."

Even if Sparks streaming of a major sports event turns out to be no more than the flash of distant guns on the horizon it is a portent of change.

As things progress streaming of video content will become more accepted and common. Here is a list of things I think will assist this change;

The high rate of penetration and uptake of domestic fibre in NZ,

The wider adoption of the IPV6 internet protocol and its built-in multicast options, and

The new sophisticated and bandwidth friendly AV1 video codec.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

I don't think you will find a single person who will disagree with you that streaming is the way of the future. The new leaders at Sky have even acknowledged that, hence canning the Cisco Infinite Video platform, suspending the dividend and pumping resource into Sky Sport NOW and NEON.

But even though that is the case, and even though internet technology and availability will improve exponentially over the next few years...right now, it is still the Wild Wild West. For every success story of a live sporting stream, there are two others of failure and problems.

Sky are right to invest in this space...to invest in the way of the future, but they are also damned fortunate to have a reliable satellite backing while they take the time needed for the internet to improve, and for their systems to be upgraded appropriately too.

This Spark Sport fiasco is also a wake up call to Sky. Not to assume they are immune just because Sky Sport NOW has not had any problems so far.

[mistaTea]

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/rugby...ark-sport.html

I bet Simon Moutter is relieved he is not the one having to carry the can. Second part of the interview is with Jolie Hodson. Interesting to watch her try and talk her way around the issue.

In desperation, she pulls out some pointless stats. Once they switched to simulcast on Duke, 126,000 customers stayed on Spark Sport. Well, that was in part because:

1. the message on Spark Sport (advising they had switched to Duke) only came late during the 2nd half, so viewers didn't know Spark had done that.
2. People like myself, who do stream all of our content, only have access to TVNZ On Demand - which does not have the Duke channel. So I had no choice but to persevere with a fuzzy, clear, fuzzy, clear, fuzzy picture throughout the game.

I stream via AppleTV, and have a 100Mb/s fibre connection - well set up for this tournament.

So her rubbish about "only a few devices" were having issues is unacceptable. It may well have been a relatively small number of devices that had the picture cut out or pixelate etc... but there would have been many, many more people like me who have Ultra Fast Internet and were able to stream the entire match, but the picture quality was awful.

If they are going to front up and apologise they should just leave it at that. Don't say sorry BUT it was our partners fault and then bullsh1t around the statistics to make it sound like the majority of viewers had an outstanding experience, just a few who had big problems.

[Beagle]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12272097

$235m for all black rights...stop the bus the world's gone completely mad.
Very pleased I am not a shareholder supporting what appears to be gross recklessness.