I'm happy too. Bought at 3.96, but will hold on to see what happens
Printable View
I'm happy too. Bought at 3.96, but will hold on to see what happens
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.
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.
competition law may not allow sky to be only shown to vodaphone customers
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.
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.
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!Quote:
It's still a dead/dying business model that SKT has, having a global Telco won't change this fact.
:)
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
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...
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)
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:)
Apparently there was a decent profit downgrade hidden away in the presentation material
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
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.
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
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
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:)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a good example of some old fashioned customer service, lol
https://www.google.co.nz/url?url=htt...bpubcOHAUV9tfQ
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.
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...
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.
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)
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?
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-us...-do-questions/
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket...iss-PL-rumours
And now the cricket at risk
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.
Revenue same, net profit after tax down 14.4%, no special.
https://www.nzx.com/companies/SKT/announcements/287931
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...enue-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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Definitely. Lets meet back here in five years ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good story? which mobile phone manufacturer is making 83% gross margin on their phones?
ComCom has issues: http://comcom.govt.nz/dmsdocument/14895
SKY release: https://nzx.com/companies/SKT/announcements/291781
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/opin...-for-rejection
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/e...598cb9d667ba5c
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.
look at all the taxpayers that fund sport one way or another who cannot enjoy watching it because they cannot afford sky tv
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Skt shed it's 15 cent dividend yesterday and recovered that amount in minutes. Good times.