No More TV Satellites?

rogerh

Established Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
476
Reaction score
15
Points
169
Age
78
Location
Maidstone
With Sky streaming being pushed as the way forward, does this mean the end of Satellite broadcasting, at least for some countries?
The costs of satellites must mean Sky can now offer cheaper TV?
As full fibre rolls out then why would customers want satellite TV?
Will Sky change its' name?
Will there be a lot less space junk?
Will those much moaned about dishes all disappear?
Has the technology introduced in the 1990s ( don't forget the Squarial) has run its' life?
Does this mean the end of Terrestial broadcasting as who needs a transmission mast and home aerial?
Some interesting thoughts?
 
Don't see the end of terrestrial unless the BBC stop the licence fee or include free internet.
 
Not just $ky... if they are even one of the major drivers of this.

Someone needs to do the sums to work out the energy / environmental cost of servers, server room cooling and fibre distribution of internet vs the current broadcast satellite and terrestrial systems.
I suspect it may well cost more but it's a 'gut feel' with no real numbers behind it.

Point to multipoint (multicast) IP exists of course and could be used more for live programme streaming.

Terrestrial masts and towers will still be needed for wireless mobile internet and streaming. 5G is expected to be used for TV streaming 'broadcasts'.

Satellite is also used for internet... Musk's Starlink for instance. Satellite is good at getting to 'out of the way' remote places (including ships and aircraft).

At the end of this year is another World Radio Conference where the spectrum is allocated for various uses in a near-future timescale. WRC-23 – World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC)
That might stop conventional terrestrial TV broadcasting in some parts of the world if no spectrum is allocated to it.
 
Not just $ky... if they are even one of the major drivers of this.

Someone needs to do the sums to work out the energy / environmental cost of servers, server room cooling and fibre distribution of internet vs the current broadcast satellite and terrestrial systems.
I suspect it may well cost more but it's a 'gut feel' with no real numbers behind it.

Point to multipoint (multicast) IP exists of course and could be used more for live programme streaming.

Terrestrial masts and towers will still be needed for wireless mobile internet and streaming. 5G is expected to be used for TV streaming 'broadcasts'.

Satellite is also used for internet... Musk's Starlink for instance. Satellite is good at getting to 'out of the way' remote places (including ships and aircraft).

At the end of this year is another World Radio Conference where the spectrum is allocated for various uses in a near-future timescale. WRC-23 – World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC)
That might stop conventional terrestrial TV broadcasting in some parts of the world if no spectrum is allocated to it.
Thanks for the insights. You're absolutely right that no one seems to be looking into the figures. It will be interesting to see what they do come up with when someone does.
It will be interesting to see if any of the satellite companies have looked at the impact from loss of revenue should TV broadcasters no longer want transponder space in times to come.
 
Yes terrestrial TV will be a thing of the past in the very near future - according to this article the average BBC 1 viewer is in their 60s!

There's been an absolute media revolution in my lifetime, and yet somehow I only seemed to notice after I upgraded our main TV three years ago. That's when I suddenly realised we weren't watching any live TV apart from sport, and we weren't using the cable box at all anymore, only the streaming apps built into the TV.

 
Tim Davie will be gone in a short while, he's cocking up everything the BBC stood for.
 
Yes terrestrial TV will be a thing of the past in the very near future - according to this article the average BBC 1 viewer is in their 60s!

There's been an absolute media revolution in my lifetime, and yet somehow I only seemed to notice after I upgraded our main TV three years ago. That's when I suddenly realised we weren't watching any live TV apart from sport, and we weren't using the cable box at all anymore, only the streaming apps built into the TV.

I'm really surprised if that's true. There are lots of reasons for radio type transmissions including the obvious one of being able to tune in without an internet connection. DAB is still not delivering properly. Will car radio audiences need car internet? Will phone providers become the broadcasters?
 
I'm really surprised if that's true. There are lots of reasons for radio type transmissions including the obvious one of being able to tune in without an internet connection. DAB is still not delivering properly. Will car radio audiences need car internet? Will phone providers become the broadcasters?
To be fair, this guy takes a different view and thinks terrestrial TV has some distance left to run.

But only 6% of UK households are now without Internet access and my own experience as a middle-aged family man - not even a young person at the forefront of the latest tech and trends - must be pretty indicative of the direction of travel. I've found it's just quicker and easier to watch TV through apps even on those very rare occasions when we want to watch a live programme.

"Ultimately, digital terrestrial TV will exist as long as there is sufficient public demand and need for it."
 
To be fair, this guy takes a different view and thinks terrestrial TV has some distance left to run.

But only 6% of UK households are now without Internet access and my own experience as a middle-aged family man - not even a young person at the forefront of the latest tech and trends - must be pretty indicative of the direction of travel. I've found it's just quicker and easier to watch TV through apps even on those very rare occasions when we want to watch a live programme.

"Ultimately, digital terrestrial TV will exist as long as there is sufficient public demand and need for it."
Yes, I suppose you're right. Like you I'm the age when listening to Fab 208 in bed was a real experience. We have seen vast changes. It would be difficult to describe to someone the enticing thrill of tuning along the wavebands listening out for the wondrous sounds we might hear. I still have many memories of discoveries made from far away lands. Of course one of the most important was tuning along to the bottom of the medium wave and hearing "This is Caroline on 199". I later enjoyed the same thrill with TV, seeing who had the ITV aerial and tuning the tv to see if we could pick up anything from further away. Satellite tv tuning to the various Astra and Hot Bird transmissions. Watching Iraq TV during the war, trying to improve my French etc
Now the world seems available on the WWW those days of magic have gone. I suppose that "Everything Everywhere" will be a good thing?
Sorry to go all nostalgic and theological.
 
Wonder how long the satellites are supposed to last, they are solar powered so not necessarily going to run out of juice anytime.

What’s the plan for end of life as they either sit there or would have to some sort or re-entry system even if that’s just to burn up.

Even though the internet is a viable delivery option I still think it will be with us for some time just because there are so many what of scenarios.
 
Wonder how long the satellites are supposed to last, they are solar powered so not necessarily going to run out of juice anytime.

What’s the plan for end of life as they either sit there or would have to some sort or re-entry system even if that’s just to burn up.

Even though the internet is a viable delivery option I still think it will be with us for some time just because there are so many what of scenarios.
I think you're right. As far as I know old or outdated satellites are manoeuvred lower and then burn up. Must be a really expensive venture to make a profit from.
 
I read somewhere that Sky was not planning on renewing its satellite transponder leases when they expire in 2028. That would explain its push to online only. As for the BBC, if it moves online, I really hope that it ups the quality of the streamed content. The current iPlayer quality is, by and large, utter pants. It needs to match broadcast HD picture and audio quality as an absolute minimum .

Presumably, would can expect the other broadcasters to move to a purely online arena. Interesting times.
 
I read somewhere that Sky was not planning on renewing its satellite transponder leases when they expire in 2028. That would explain its push to online only. As for the BBC, if it moves online, I really hope that it ups the quality of the streamed content. The current iPlayer quality is, by and large, utter pants. It needs to match broadcast HD picture and audio quality as an absolute minimum .

Presumably, would can expect the other broadcasters to move to a purely online arena. Interesting times.
Sky have recently signed carriage agreements for satellite services to 2028, but that doesn't mean they're not going to extend again. The limit could be because most will have reached the end of their 15 year life by then - Astra 28.2°E - Wikipedia

iPlayer can deliver 1080 full HD streams - they're used by Sky Glass/Stream, for example.
 
Yes, it’s true that iPlayer can deliver 1080p streams, but coverage isn’t universal, and many users have to make do with 720p. The lack of consistency is inexcusable, given that the BBC pushes the platform at every opportunity, as is the lack of multichannel audio support.

There’s no way that I’m aware of to check exactly what picture resolution is being offered by iPlayer. Only Netflix seems to offer that readily, and NowTV on certain platforms, which can be discerned by the stream quality value.

Is the BBC expecting to move to an Internet-based service with last century iPlayer at its core? At the very least, the platform should be able to match the quality of its current HD broadcasting in terms of both picture and audio quality, but in 2023 shouldn’t 4K be the norm, rather than the odd offering?
 
Wonder how long the satellites are supposed to last, they are solar powered so not necessarily going to run out of juice anytime.

What’s the plan for end of life as they either sit there or would have to some sort or re-entry system even if that’s just to burn up.

Even though the internet is a viable delivery option I still think it will be with us for some time just because there are so many what of scenarios.
Satellites have a useful life span of 20-25 years. Some last longer, but the limitations are more around the amount of propellant that can be carried to keep the satellite on station, and to move it to new positions.

There's a number of satellite "constellations" at geostationary positions, giving global coverage. Theoretically, you can cover more than 90% of the earth's surface from 3 satellites, but in reality, there's many more, currently providing more than 5000 channels to various parts of the world.

Once a geostationary satellite has completed its mission, it is pushed several thousand Kilometres higher into a Junk or Graving orbit using the last of its propellant. There's literally hundreds of them up there in orbits that won't degrade until long after humans have disappeared from the earth.

Satellites providing Internet services are launched into low earth orbit - similar to the International Space Station, hence why you need many more of them to cover the earth. This reduces the power needed to communicate with them, although earlier fixed satellite Internet services using geostationary satellites could use 15w ground stations with 1.2m dishes. These satellites tend to be much smaller and are de-orbited at the end of their mission, usually over the Pacific, well away from shipping lanes.

Compare the lease cost of a few transponders on a satellite to the infrastructure required for Internet based playout services and I doubt there's much in it currently. There's the issue of latency with streaming, as it's not as simple as just allowing lots of connections to the same live stream, leading to latency of about 10-90 seconds, depending upon the service provider. Not an issue for most content, but any sporting events with betting allowed up to the end of the contest need very low latency to prevent cheating and abuse. News and current affairs also benefit from live playout, but I think the concept of fixed "channels" is coming to an end, and we will simply pick genres and programme types to watch, and the technology will create customised playlists based upon our preferences.

I do think the era of large ground based TV transmission is almost over, but maybe not for 10 years or so. Radio is more likely to continue for longer, as there's too much reliance on simple radio receivers, and public pressure to retain it will remain strong.
 
It's the 'roll out of full fibre' that concerns me. Being only three miles from a city and yet only getting absolute max 23mbps internet means that I can't have the future dominated by internet delivered TV, etc as our bandwidth doesn't support it when everything else is internet driven.

I see the new full fibre being delivered across Lincoln and they will soon be getting 1Gig service but for us there is no hope of getting fttp. I had a quote for fttp which came to £18000 and no hope of it being delivered in any meaningful way in the foreseeable future.

My Mother replaced her Sky HD with the new Sky Stream box and that works great as an internet delivered service and she no longer needs her satellite dish or cables running into the house. Of course, she has better internet speed than us,
 
There's the issue of latency with streaming, as it's not as simple as just allowing lots of connections to the same live stream, leading to latency of about 10-90 seconds, depending upon the service provider.

Very true, Sky go streaming of the Carabao Cup was well over a minute compared to the live broadcast.
 
It's the 'roll out of full fibre' that concerns me. Being only three miles from a city and yet only getting absolute max 23mbps internet means that I can't have the future dominated by internet delivered TV, etc as our bandwidth doesn't support it when everything else is internet driven.

I see the new full fibre being delivered across Lincoln and they will soon be getting 1Gig service but for us there is no hope of getting fttp. I had a quote for fttp which came to £18000 and no hope of it being delivered in any meaningful way in the foreseeable future.

My Mother replaced her Sky HD with the new Sky Stream box and that works great as an internet delivered service and she no longer needs her satellite dish or cables running into the house. Of course, she has better internet speed than us,
23Mb is enough for streaming 4K, let alone 1080p, even with other users in the home.

We get something closer to 32Mb here, and with 4 family members all streaming, gaming and using the myriad of internet connected devices, I cannot remember the last time we saw any buffering.
 
23Mb is enough for streaming 4K, let alone 1080p, even with other users in the home.

We get something closer to 32Mb here, and with 4 family members all streaming, gaming and using the myriad of internet connected devices, I cannot remember the last time we saw any buffering.

You won’t generally get buffering if things are behaving but you might be bumped on to a lower bit rate. Netflix has at least 6 that I have seen and depending on the device might ramp up at the start.

As a rule of thumb somebody able to choose a package, rather than stuck on what’s available should be looking at a minimum of 25Mbps per person and preferably 50Mbps. So a speed of 50Mbps for two out 100Mbps should be the minimum aim
 
You won’t generally get buffering if things are behaving but you might be bumped on to a lower bit rate. Netflix has at least 6 that I have seen and depending on the device might ramp up at the start.

As a rule of thumb somebody able to choose a package, rather than stuck on what’s available should be looking at a minimum of 25Mbps per person and preferably 50Mbps. So a speed of 50Mbps for two out 100Mbps should be the minimum aim
I know what you mean.
We rarely see any quality issues either. It locks up to a good resolution and there it stays. FTTC pretty much killed the issues with contention, so it's really just the local line speed that's the bottle neck.

What tends to trip up streaming and other data intensive services is highly variable bit rate. Unless you live on top of a 5G tower, this can be an issue on mobile internet solutions.
 
Streaming is more than just the broadband speed that’s available to you though. For example, I’m on a 500mbit broadband connection, yet the other night Amazon struggled to start, buffering a bit, before delivering an obvious SD quality picture stream. A restart sorted the issue.

People don’t tend to consider that there are many ‘obstacles’ along the way between the endpoints, and as a result, there’s plenty to go wrong. Everything from network contention, load, routing, all comes into play. Having the highest available/affordable broadband connection is just the start.
 
Yes, everyone talks as if broadband speeds are only getting quicker.

We get around 76-78 meg fibre with EE. We got a new neighbour last year and he was told from numerous companies that due to what they can promise people on the same "supply" the best they could give him was 10 meg (not even fibre).

The "will everything go to the internet" discussion is quite similar to the "will everything go to electricity" discussion... neither system is ready yet.
 
Satellites have a useful life span of 20-25 years. Some last longer, but the limitations are more around the amount of propellant that can be carried to keep the satellite on station, and to move it to new positions.
Spot on. It's mainly the propellant for the station keeping thrusters that limit the life. There are companies looking at developing space tugs and refuellers so that older satellites can be given a new lease of life, and repositioned if necessary for new customers.
 
Satellites have a useful life span of 20-25 years. Some last longer, but the limitations are more around the amount of propellant that can be carried to keep the satellite on station, and to move it to new positions.

There's a number of satellite "constellations" at geostationary positions, giving global coverage. Theoretically, you can cover more than 90% of the earth's surface from 3 satellites, but in reality, there's many more, currently providing more than 5000 channels to various parts of the world.

Once a geostationary satellite has completed its mission, it is pushed several thousand Kilometres higher into a Junk or Graving orbit using the last of its propellant. There's literally hundreds of them up there in orbits that won't degrade until long after humans have disappeared from the earth.

Satellites providing Internet services are launched into low earth orbit - similar to the International Space Station, hence why you need many more of them to cover the earth. This reduces the power needed to communicate with them, although earlier fixed satellite Internet services using geostationary satellites could use 15w ground stations with 1.2m dishes. These satellites tend to be much smaller and are de-orbited at the end of their mission, usually over the Pacific, well away from shipping lanes.

Compare the lease cost of a few transponders on a satellite to the infrastructure required for Internet based playout services and I doubt there's much in it currently. There's the issue of latency with streaming, as it's not as simple as just allowing lots of connections to the same live stream, leading to latency of about 10-90 seconds, depending upon the service provider. Not an issue for most content, but any sporting events with betting allowed up to the end of the contest need very low latency to prevent cheating and abuse. News and current affairs also benefit from live playout, but I think the concept of fixed "channels" is coming to an end, and we will simply pick genres and programme types to watch, and the technology will create customised playlists based upon our preferences.

I do think the era of large ground based TV transmission is almost over, but maybe not for 10 years or so. Radio is more likely to continue for longer, as there's too much reliance on simple radio receivers, and public pressure to retain it will remain strong.
Interesting that we are already littering space with our junk. Won't they prove to be a problem in the future? For example other rockets or asteroids hitting them? Wouldn't it be better to burn them up?
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom