If only Sky could offer their services over some different kind of infrastructure, that gave customers more choice in where and when they were gonna consume said services... or they could keep their focus of being the safety net for the last few dinosaurs clinging to their satellite dishes.
Sky would probably do better to buy all their customers with bad internet a Starlink kit and upsell them internet than to spend $200m on a new satellite.
Sky would probably do better to buy all their customers with bad internet a Starlink kit and upsell them internet than to spend $200m on a new satellite.
you can already do this with Sky Sport now
With that said, the key takeaway from my post is that Sky shouldn't be pumping up everyone's prices and cutting sports to support an redundant distribution model.
Interesting take away - I have to ask how deeply you are involved in satellite operations? What makes you qualified to make that statement? Even outside the 16% of NZ which can't get a digital terrestrial signal and satellite is their only option I think you will find this "redundant distribution method" is relied on heavily.
Starlink can deliver high speed internet to virtually everyone in NZ. Instead of $200m on a Satellite, Sky could just about buy every one of their satellite subscribers a free Starlink kit. I'd be giving Elon a call and working out how they can offer a joint TV+Internet package and monopolise the 16% of NZ who can't get broadband and TV any other way at a fraction of the cost.
Acknowledge there's other use cases (I'm guessing you're referring to places like public venues?) but begs the question whether that's worth increasing prices and cutting sports to support or if there's a better way.