Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fisty McB" data-source="post: 1158496" data-attributes="member: 389824">How many satellite-based subscribers does Sky have at present? I have in the back of my mind a figure of 10 million plus back in the 2010's but I'm not sure what the more recent figures are, and a quick search doesn't give many clues. I'm going to estimate that getting all such subscribers over to their own streaming platforms (badged either &quot;Sky or &quot;Now&quot;) over the next 4-5 years will not be easy, even if getting something like 5 million or so analogue satellite subscribers over to digital in the late 90's/early 00's was pulled off back then in the space of ~3 years.What I find interesting in the early reports is Sky saying that their Stream service is largely being taken up by those that have never been a Sky subscriber before, and that only around a quarter of signups to Stream are conversions from the satellite platform which might give them a long-term headache on that front regarding potential refuseniks (maybe in 3-4 years time we'll see Sky offer Sky Q subscribers some very good deals to switch to Stream so that they can pull the plug on satellite earlier), but as for &quot;they can't pull the service until every last person has giga-speed broadband available&quot;, I don't see that argument washing much for Sky as a purely commercial operator. Something like 97-98% of the UK can already get 30 Mbps download speeds via landline broadband services, a speed that is more than capable of handling several HD streams per household, and that spare 2-3% (likely be under 2% by 2028) won't be of a major concern to Sky as the cost of servicing such subscribers will likely be too high (maybe a much reduced service compared to the current lineup at best) and in most cases that small percentage can be served with broadband via an alternative technology. That 2-3% will arguably be more of a concern for Freesat, given the general PSB commitments there, and the cost per viewer base on that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fisty McB, post: 1158496, member: 389824"] How many satellite-based subscribers does Sky have at present? I have in the back of my mind a figure of 10 million plus back in the 2010's but I'm not sure what the more recent figures are, and a quick search doesn't give many clues. I'm going to estimate that getting all such subscribers over to their own streaming platforms (badged either "Sky or "Now") over the next 4-5 years will not be easy, even if getting something like 5 million or so analogue satellite subscribers over to digital in the late 90's/early 00's was pulled off back then in the space of ~3 years. What I find interesting in the early reports is Sky saying that their Stream service is largely being taken up by those that have never been a Sky subscriber before, and that only around a quarter of signups to Stream are conversions from the satellite platform which might give them a long-term headache on that front regarding potential refuseniks (maybe in 3-4 years time we'll see Sky offer Sky Q subscribers some very good deals to switch to Stream so that they can pull the plug on satellite earlier), but as for "they can't pull the service until every last person has giga-speed broadband available", I don't see that argument washing much for Sky as a purely commercial operator. Something like 97-98% of the UK can already get 30 Mbps download speeds via landline broadband services, a speed that is more than capable of handling several HD streams per household, and that spare 2-3% (likely be under 2% by 2028) won't be of a major concern to Sky as the cost of servicing such subscribers will likely be too high (maybe a much reduced service compared to the current lineup at best) and in most cases that small percentage can be served with broadband via an alternative technology. That 2-3% will arguably be more of a concern for Freesat, given the general PSB commitments there, and the cost per viewer base on that. [/QUOTE]

Verification