>After almost five decades on air, the future of satellite TV remains uncertain beyond 2029 with broadcasters reluctant to commit to the platform for longer.A decision needs to be made within the next two years if satellite TV services from Sky and/or Freesat will continue. That’s because the current fleet of satellites are reaching their end of life dates and any replacement satellite needs to be commissioned at least three years in advance.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KKmGGh1AxM
satellite>rarely interrupted unless really bad weather>doesn't use bandwidth, can hook up multiple tvs to one dish>costly to put in space but maintenance costs could be shared across multiple countries>millions of people can access it if they can see the sky, very good for remote regions>capable of good quality 4K video (they had free test channels on astra satellite a few years ago)internet tv>connection goes down>can buffer under demand, especially with multiple 4K videos being played in the house>requires fibre optic cables everywhere, which is not always practical in remote areas>may be worse for the environment (servers use up a lot of electricity, water)Why are we getting rid of good technology?
>>106513702Somebody wants more control.
>>106513702This is probably more about a decision to launch dedicated satellites for video as opposed to serving with existing internet satellites or even cellular where it makes sense.
>>106513702What if I use satellite internet for my internet TV?
>>106513702They don't want to pay for satellites. Streaming means they make more money for less work. They can also fire all of their engineers which they've been doing.
>>106513702Control the population
>>106513702>>requires fibre optic cables everywhere, which is not always practical in remote areasit's funny that we have all of this niggerlicious "technology" but it (and our fake and gay economic system) still can't make it affordable to dig a 2 foot deep hole for fiber optic cables.
>>106513889Recursion until you seg fault.
>>106513702There's more money in internet tv. Satellite only makes sense if you care about serving customers. When you look at the bottom line internet tv just makes more sense.
>>106513731jews>>106513891again, jews don't want to maintain infrastructure, they only want to collect profits>>106514011Empire of Dust, featuring your local ISP
>>106513702>rarely interrupted unless really bad weatherDunno about your definition of really bad but it always dropped out whenever a snowstorm or thunderstorm rolled throughMuch of winter and spring had regular dropouts here
>>106514113There is more satellite infrastructure now then there ever has been, there is going to be even more as companies make LEO constellations.TV sats dont make much sense when internet sats are becoming more and more available.Same type of shit happened when when ISPs where deciding to upkeep pots or just integrate it into fiber installs. POTS was otherwise trivial to integrate so that's where they went.
>>106513702Fiber optical cables are no longer needed to provide good internet to rural areas, satellite internet has gotten good enough to handle those customers just fine. That's the real reason why dedicated TV broadcast satellites will probably end up being phased out; most of their potential customers would rather just have satellite internet & the streaming services of their choice, the whole broadcasting model is not something most TV watchers like, its just something they put up with in the past due to technical limitations.
>>106513731>>106513991The switch from people using satellite tv to satellite internet services to aquire videos means less centralized control over people, not more. With satellite TV the satellite company has full control over what channels are being broadcasted and can easily just not carry stuff they don't approve of. People using satellite internet as their ISP can watch videos from whatever streaming service they desire, or download stuff off the high seas, and use VPNs to mask a lot of what they are doing from the ISP.
>>106513702>costly to put in spaceNTA but...surely a couple of satellites can't be more expensive than the bandwidth required to serve millions of video streams over the internet???this is something I really don't get, bandwidth is the #1 expense of video streaming platforms and they will do anything possible to reduce the amount of bitrate required (e.g. putting in money to develop more efficient codecs like cuckflix, jewgle and a bunch of other big corpos did with av1), shouldn't satellite internet be cheaper? the cost of the satellite is fixed, while bandwidth goes up in price the more users you have, how is pushing people to internet streaming a good long term strategy to reduce costs?
>>106514844>shouldn't satellite internet be cheaper?*meant satellite television
>>106513702>Why are we getting rid of good technology?technology is only a means to get money, sadly
>>106513600good riddance to Boomer and Gen X cancer trash. Fuck off and never come back
One fucking satellite can potentially provide 2 continents with tv footage. They only limit the beams because of copyright issues
>>106514844There are more considerations beyond the cost of the satellite.You require people to operate the satellite, those are recurring costs over the lifetime of the satellite along with any administrative costs that stem from having those people employed.Bandwidth in general has gotten cheaper over time. At some point there may be an intersection where the cost to operate and the amortized cost of the satellite itself intersect with the cost of just buying bandwidth from an internet sat provider and running an internet service.It's possible that intersection may be closer than you'd think as internet satellite providers in general are struggling with consumers and other end users. They might welcome the pivot to other businesses using them as a dumb pipe to carry their video services.
>>106513702satellite sucks you dishonest faggot
>>106515288What's stopping hypothetical Don'tGiveAFuckistan with it's own resources an space program that isn't self isolated an heavily sanctioned like North Korea economically from beaming said content down with or without the rights holders permission anyway? Is Warner Bros gonna start shooting anti satellite missiles out in space as retaliation?
>>106515402>Is Warner Bros gonna start shooting anti satellite missiles out in space as retaliation?Probably. Also countries that are out of reach for the western authorities tend to not have space programs. Except Russia i guess. I'm actually surprised they aren't flooding Europe with free sports and propaganda mixed in
>>106513600>sky>freesatcringe> That’s because the current fleet of satellites are reaching their end of life dates and any replacement satellite needs to be commissioned at least three years in advance.nobody gives a fuck. it's sky. >wow! it's clickbaiting cancer from some jewtubershocking. truly shocking.>>106513702chad post
>>106515424>I'm actually surprised they aren't flooding Europe with free sports and propaganda mixed inMaybe it's a Pandora's box thing and Russia doesn't want to open it because they it will in turn be used against them too.
>>106513702Don't worry skynet will come soon and you'll be begging for it to disconnect
>>106513702Very antisemitic postYou can extract more profit from the goycattle by having them pay several subscription services, which will be served via internet, than traditional satellite TV, gentile.
>>106516740The west already did that shit for decades, all these Radio Free Someshit are literal CIA fronts
>>106513702Because idiots buy streaming services.It's no wonder TV is going. It's use is being used less as Boomers are told by their cordcutting kids to get streaming for on-demand programming instead of TV channel flipping.Why do you think all these streaming services are raising prices?
>>106513600Cable in general is dying. It's just not tenable with the high costs broadcasters consistently charge service providers.And honestly thank god. Cable tv's lineup is god awful.
>>106516914Broadcasters WANT people to go to streaming because they get more profit from it. It's why they keep raising costs on cable providers.t. works at utility company soon to cancel their cable.
"Live" streaming TV is awful. I hear my neighbours with sky q cheer a minute before this fucking streaming shit shows the goals.
i'll be glad to see the death of those ugly dishes on every british house>>106513702people prefer to watch on-demand, retard
F2A will always exist, it's paid for by the BBG. It's like 1100 channels now. I have a DirecTV antenna that is pointed at a sat with so many channels that it'd blow your mind. You can actually get them from a github, I think it's f2a tv or something.
>>106517800Is there anything actually worth watching on those 1100 channels? Personally I would rather just download any show or movie I want to watch rather than being stuck on some else's schedule.
