Skip Navigation

BSkyB consider embracing YouView
Friday 25 March 2011 12:33:47 by John Hunt

BSkyB has emerged as one of sixteen companies who are reported to be working with YouView in delivering content over the Internet-TV based YouView platform. Sky had previously requested a competition commission investigation in to the joint venture which is expected to launch in early 2012. The company seems to be taking the wise decision of embracing the platform which could be another outlet for them to distribute their content.

"We already distribute Sky content across a wide range of platforms. It makes sense for us to continue to explore new ways of reaching customers, but it's too early to say at this stage whether we'll offer a service over YouView."

Sky spokesman

The sixteen companies also include some other familiar names including LOVEFiLM, Film4oD and The Guardian News & Media, which could breed some interesting new content available to users.

"We're delighted with the response we've had from the creative industries. We want all types of content providers to be able to deliver their content via YouView so viewers get the best possible choice.

The diversity and expertise of the organisations that are informing our development will ensure that YouView is able to support a potentially unlimited range of content in the future."

Richard Halton, (CEO) YouView

Making the leap to move past the Internet being available only through computers has been a long ambition for many. Other companies are already making steps in this direction with Sony, for example, releasing a Google-integrated TV. Opening up on-demand content to TVs will truly breed a video revolution, allowing users to watch nearly anything they choose whenever they want. One hurdle does still remain for some, which is ensuring that the Internet connection is able to deliver this content, both in terms of speed and cost of video-heavy broadband users.


Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
lets hope they don't try a takeover...
...keep an eye on them.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago,_extend_and_extinguish
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
I think this article is a week early :)

Good for Sky.
Posted by jude105 over 6 years ago
It would be terrible if Sky got involved, it will be like freeview all over again :(
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Needs good connections to get proper full HD.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

Majority of people with poor connections are poor people so chances are they won't have a HDTV anyways.
Posted by SheepFarmer over 6 years ago
Needs a good connection, yes, but will get many more consumers pushing for better connections.

None of this 'up to' or sync speed nonsense. The question will be "can I stream an HD sports channel on a Saturday evening?" The ISPs that can will get more customers.
Posted by TGVrecord over 6 years ago
@ otester

I know loads of really rich people who have homes to die for but have appalling internet connections. The problem being that 5 bedroom houses with land tend to a long way from the exchange!
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

By rich I mean able to afford alternatives, those being:

1) Rent-out a house near the exchange with best LOS to other house, set-up a wireless link (satellite dishes are great for this).
2) Dedicated line.

#1 would cost about £1k a month.
#2 would cost about £10k a month but provide a better speed.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
Regarding #1, should actually make a profit on it.
Posted by TGVrecord over 6 years ago
@ otester

You must live in a parallel universe where HD TV costs £1k per month! I would not class a HDTV as being expensive. Even 3D TV's can be purchased for under £1k. And why would a poor internet connection be a reason for not having a HDTV? My TV works very well with my Freesat box. Internet is just a bonus.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

My post was in regards to internet connections, not quite sure what you're on about.
Posted by TGVrecord over 6 years ago
@ Otester

You posted 'Majority of people with poor connections are poor people so chances are they won't have a HDTV anyways'. Looks like you have forgotten your own post.
Posted by mabibby over 6 years ago
Sky will run away with this project.

Satellites are expensive to lease!

Isn't it co-incidental how amazingly low cost their BB and Phone packages are.

I won't be surprised if Sky make a real push for some sort of LLU based FTTC arrangement.

The money they'd save from not installing and maintaining the satellite equipment they could afford to role out FTTC or FTTH to a VERY large area!
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

My "alternatives" were in regards to rich people and internet connections, not HDTVs. Looks like you got mixed up.

Original point being if your poor don't expect both.
Posted by adslmax over 6 years ago
Get lost sky. I hate sky for two reasons, very expensive on sky packages with increasing all times and secondary is fed up of repeating all times and sky want your money, not the best customer service to the customers.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

High prices are not dictated by Sky but the rights holders for the media.

You can get Sky equivalent from other countries, eg: Greece where it is ~65% cheaper.
Posted by TGVrecord over 6 years ago
@ otester

If you make sweeping generalisations without thinking don't blame others of getting things mixed up. Your original comment does not have any basis in fact.

Anyway it was you who first referred to HD TV!
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

SD TV requires less than 1Mbps to watch.

So kinda irrelevant, also not my problem if you can't interpret comments properly.
Posted by TGVrecord over 6 years ago
@ otester

Not my problem if you cannot take criticism. You remind me of my daughter when she was only four years old using the phone. She would assume I could see the same things as her despite the fact I was 35 miles away!
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

You're allowed breed?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@mabibby:Actually broadcasting from satellite is cheap. Sky don't actually need or own all that much equipment. Just some boxes to route their signal onto the uplink and manage the EPG. Most if not all of that would be required by any ground based network anyway.

Don't be fooled into thinking that Sky own satellites or launch equipment. They just rent transponder capacity off the actual owners.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
(cont'd):Sky do have their own channels (and I believe they will deal with carriage arrangements these days much as BTw carries other ISP's data) but the service (as with Freesat) is basically just an EPG and broadcasters pay to be listed.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Freesat is an example of how little cost and effort is really required. Just two or three people in a back office to coordinate and collate the EPG then a data link to squirt the EPG over to the uplink station.

All Freesat does (and all that's at the heart of Sky) is metadata that tells the box how to tune in each channel. It's not much more complicated for the channel operator. Take your data stream, rent some transponder capacity then arrange for the data to be bounced off the satellite by the operator.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
(cont'd) to clarify on the carriage bit. I believe that Sky have started offering an optional service where they will sort out the uplink stuff to save the channel operator the bother. It's not a requirement though. Just some handy service they offer to channel operators that want the minimum of hassle and are happy to pay a little extra.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.