Sky's (push-)VOD service - Sky Anytime on TV

[themelon]

That box is going to require some serious work, on most of the UK connection speeds I can not see it workign very well, BT are struggling to get it to work.

[RealDiamond]

Yep ive tryed streaming data at 4mb/s, it sucks even with quicktime7 h.264 4mb/s is to slow for 720p even over the net.
I have no clue hows its going to be done.
Ive got the free box from NTL and can visualy see the short cuts Virgin use to run it. ie whys that black jacket checkered in different black squares, o right, it not meant to be.

[makem1973]

Looks like sky are trying there own version of VOD, hope its better than VM

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...lnk=101&id=219

Only 30 hours a week at the moment but can only get bigger I suppose

[Media Boy]

An friend of mine has got an Sky + Box dated 2001 code 1B02. So when will they get Sky's VOD?

[Tom Stanley]

He won't. Anytime is only for the PVR3 boxes (August 05) and the HD boxes.

And that version number doesn't sound right, it sounds like the end to an Operating System version, not the box version!

Tom

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by RS100

Here is info and pic's of sky's vod service


http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...v-preview.html

what do you guys think about it,

Its a poor mans VOD, skys technology is poor and they can only store programs on the box whilst not been able to do true on demand. I think they intend to address this in the future using adsl as a way of providing proper on demand.

I disabled mine as it stops my hd in the sky+ been powered down as it records all night to provide the anytime content.

---------- Post added at 01:35 ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek S

From memory V1 was made by Pace and had a 40GB Drive. V2 was made by Amstrad and again had a 40GB drive.

V3 was back to Pace and had a larger hard drive with a hidden part for 'future' use.

This is all from memory and may be wildly wrong. Basically the 1st and 2nd Gen boxes cannot use the new thing and the others can.

PVR3 is done by all 3 manufacturers, mine been a amstrad which I think happens to be the slowest and most unreliable of the 3 brands.

Thompson
Amstrad
Pace

---------- Post added at 01:37 ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 ----------

Originally Posted by andygrif

That's my understanding too. There was also a Sky+160 box, which was (much) more expensive, which I would assume is not included in the pseudo-VOD service.

According to reports, about half the Sky+ boxes are going to get this upgrade - so perhaps this is why there are rumours that the Sky+ charge is going to be dropped - I mean, if I had a V2 box (thankfully I have a V3 one) I wouldn't be very happy about coughing up the same tenner each month for features I couldn't access.

I am purely doodling in the wind here, but I have a feeling that if the rumours about the Sky+ service for free are true, then the 'VOD' element might be chargeable. Just a hunch, no basis for my musings.

The sky+ becoming free I think is more due to the fact freeview boxes now have the same recording features and its became a threat to sky.

---------- Post added at 01:40 ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 ----------

Originally Posted by themelon

That box is going to require some serious work, on most of the UK connection speeds I can not see it workign very well, BT are struggling to get it to work.

IPTV is probably the single biggest thing that justifies a FTTH/P rollout as the current adsl infrastructure as as already been said will struggle with it. Very surprised BT attempted it on ADSL1 technology, other countries that have high IPTV takeup such as belgium provide it over adsl2+ which has much more bandwidth then ADSL1 but even then BTs high attenuation lines will have problems.

[andygrif]

As we all know, Sky bought EasyNet which was one of the most 'rolled-out' networks under LLU at the time.

Would I be right in thinking that the kit they install in the BT exchanges is ADSL2+ already or easily upgradable? That would make Sky a realistic challenger in the VOD arena if that's correct.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by andygrif

As we all know, Sky bought EasyNet which was one of the most 'rolled-out' networks under LLU at the time.

Would I be right in thinking that the kit they install in the BT exchanges is ADSL2+ already or easily upgradable? That would make Sky a realistic challenger in the VOD arena if that's correct.

correct.

[arcamalpha2004]

Originally Posted by andygrif

But then you should have bought the Sky+160 if you needed the extra space. If you bought the standard version you only bought 80gb of space...so the extra stuff is a bonus.

There is the option to fit a larger HD if youre that way inclined.

---------- Post added at 23:13 ---------- Previous post was at 23:10 ----------

Originally Posted by themelon

This can not be marketed as Video on Demand because it is absolutely not that.

It is what its says on the tin, Sky downloading rubbish that they think you want to watch, their own 'fantastic content' and 'great tv' which the have spent (wasted) millions on. Regardless of whether you want to watch it or not. Sky+ on its own with no reserved space would be a better choice for the consumer.

I agree it looks aboslutely crap and has to be a pathetic attempt at a stop gap measure which Sky will market as fantastic Video on Demand where you can watch Lost as many times as you want......guess it will suit some. The only way Sky will offer true VOD, is a satellite/IPTV hybrid box. Judging by the trouble BT have with IPTV, I can not imagine this being a countrywide service in the next 5 years, Tiscalli aim to offer to around 5 major cities by year end (if they are lucky!).

In fairness it is only what vm are doing, downloading rubbish that THEY think you might want to watch, so sky are not isolated on that one.
What would matter to me is does it work.