Sky customers will soon be able to watch TV without a satellite with the new 'Sky Glass' service

Former_MSE_James_F

Households that have previously been denied Sky TV because they can't have a satellite dish fitted, such as those who live in some flats, will soon be able to access the service via a special TV instead. 'Sky Glass' will render satellite dishes and set-top-boxes redundant as the TV instead relies on a broadband connection to stream live TV and enable access to a variety of built in apps.

Read the full story here:
'Sky customers will soon be able to watch TV without a satellite with the new 'Sky Glass' service - but it doesn't come cheap'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

[Deleted User]

How long before Sky stop providing a satellite service completely ?

mjm3346

Deleted_User said:

How long before Sky stop providing a satellite service completely ?

“We’re still investing in Sky Q, that’s not going away,” Kathy Morel, Sky product director, said.

So based on their usual truthfulness index rating that means the end will be sometime next year - however it will actually be sometime/longtime before there are anything close to enough streaming clients (obviously releasing a "streaming" box instead of requiring purchase of a TV would speed that up)  and even if they stopped launching any new satellites today there are still many years expected life left in the existing ones. 

[Deleted User]

mjm3346 said:

Deleted_User said:

How long before Sky stop providing a satellite service completely ?

“We’re still investing in Sky Q, that’s not going away,” Kathy Morel, Sky product director, said.

So based on their usual truthfulness index rating that means the end will be sometime next year - however it will actually be sometime/longtime before there are anything close to enough streaming clients (obviously releasing a "streaming" box instead of requiring purchase of a TV would speed that up)  and even if they stopped launching any new satellites today there are still many years expected life left in the existing ones. 

What about Sky HD ?

Many of us are not on Sky Q

Thrugelmir

Once sufficient customers have migrated. The service will most likely be withdrawn. 

prowla

Well, that's going to need performant and reliable BB to commonfolks homes.

[Deleted User]

I must say I thought it was a joke when someone posted on Twitter than you will have to pay £5 a month to fast forward through the adverts after twelve months. So they want you to pay for the Sky package, then rent the TV, then pay £5 to fast forward. No chance in my household. Comcast really are in the dark ages.

It looks like a nice tv and Sky have obviously put effort into it, but for me to go for it, I'd want the tv for free, and no fast forward restrictions. I just want to pay monthly for the content and that is it. I don't think it is good marketing to separate these charges so it looks like more and more on top, they should have merged the cost into one package. In addition I'd hope Sky still offer this service in the form of a box because I don't want a new TV at this time. Incidentally I have not had Sky for some time since the launch of Q and their refusal to grant me the loyalty offer, the dish was ripped off the wall in anger, so perhaps my view is bias?!

mjm3346

Deleted_User said:

What about Sky HD ?

Many of us are not on Sky Q

"Penetration of Sky Q in the UK market has now passed over 60%."

That's a figure that will only rise as new customers join and old ones upgrade voluntarily or their HD boxes break so it may not be too long for before the old boxes become almost irrelevant revenue wise for SKY particularly as the customers sticking with the old tech are not likely to be high spenders - whether or not SKY would feel the commercial need cut off support to HD boxes is another matter

[Deleted User]

Plus why should Sky dictate that I should have such a massive TV?
and what happens to all of the electronic waste?(the old equipment) 

Peter999_2

[Deleted User] said:

I must say I thought it was a joke when someone posted on Twitter than you will have to pay £5 a month to fast forward through the adverts after twelve months. So they want you to pay for the Sky package, then rent the TV, then pay £5 to fast forward. No chance in my household. Comcast really are in the dark ages.

It looks like a nice tv and Sky have obviously put effort into it, but for me to go for it, I'd want the tv for free, and no fast forward restrictions. I just want to pay monthly for the content and that is it. I don't think it is good marketing to separate these charges so it looks like more and more on top, they should have merged the cost into one package. In addition I'd hope Sky still offer this service in the form of a box because I don't want a new TV at this time. Incidentally I have not had Sky for some time since the launch of Q and their refusal to grant me the loyalty offer, the dish was ripped off the wall in anger, so perhaps my view is bias?!

I'd not heard about the £5 charge for adverts.  Have you got a link to where it says that?   Thanks.

mjm3346

Deleted_User said:

Plus why should Sky dictate that I should have such a massive TV?
and what happens to all of the electronic waste?(the old equipment) 

They are not dictating as it is your choice whether to choose the product or not.
43" is hardly "massive" in comparison to average screen size when over 60% of TVs sold are now 40" or more - and of course there is little point having a super sharp picture on a very small screen 
What happens to old sets is up to the owners of them but old sets are generally far less efficient than new ones so there are advantages to taking them out of use .