VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

And what about all the really popular programmes? You know, stuff like Britain's Got Talent, Eastenders and Antiques Roadshow.

Yes, of course, these too.

---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

OB, you have massively changed your position, whilst arguing that you haven't. Some of the things you have just presented as "obvious", you in fact did not accept until they were explained to you, patiently, often repeatedly, over the past year and more that this thread has been running.

I have quoted back to you, more than once, the post in which you predicted the demise of linear TV channels in 10 years (10 years from early 2015, that is, so about 8 years and 9 months now).

That you are now trying to draw a distinction between a linear channel and linear programming is laughable, and simply proves how many semantic contortions you are willing to make in order to avoid the simple truth: you were proved comprehensively wrong, within days of this thread opening, and everything that has followed has been a huge exercise in denial and repositioning on your part.

I think the '10 years' was taken from a story that was being carried at the time. I think it will probably take that long for the infrastructure to be in place, and my position is that 20 years is more likely to be the timespan.

I say again, I have always been of the view the live streaming will take over from live broadcasting on our conventional channels, and again, I refer to this in my earlier posts. Look elsewhere on the net and you will find similar references to linear TV when what is meant is 'old fashioned' TV. You really are being pedantic in the extreme to make something of that.

While I completely disagree with your statement that I have 'massively changed' my position (I think you should re-read my first post), there is nothing wrong with modifying one's view to take into account the opinions of others. There is also nothing wrong with explaining your position when someone puts a particular scenario to you, even though this may go beyond what was previously stated. Some of you guys pounce on people who change their views following a debate, chanting 'u-turn', but protesting that they are not listening if they don't agree with you.

Please, let's stop all this bad temper and have a decent exchange of views. I accept that you disagree with me. Let's move on. Time will tell who is right.

If there is genuinely something you want me to explain to you about what I believe on this subject, I am happy to respond, but honestly, all this 'you're changing your position' stuff does not do very much for the credibility of your arguments, and you do have some good points to make, so that is a shame.

One thing is for sure, more and more people are changing the way they view TV in favour of streaming. How far this is likely to go is the big question, and you point to the technical difficulties of sustaining this rate of change. Hopefully, we can at least agree on that much.

In my first post I commented on how any new service or product would inevitably see initially fast growth but then slow as the market reached its top level - this seems to be happening with Netflix which is predicting slowing subscriber growth:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36078925

On another note, Reed Hastings has himself talked of the need to produce more localised content because many international audiences have no interest in watching shows in English.

That will be a significant increase in its production costs and some markets are unlikely to be profitable because the number of potential subscribers won't ever cover the costs of producing enough local language content needed to draw them in.

This of course is why Netflix doesn’t bother to license the uncut UK versions of Hustle and Spooks - the US versions it offers instead lack up to 8 minutes per episode - because every step it takes to address local market demands pushes its overheads up and reduces profitability.

TV isn’t a one-size fits all business - audiences are incredibly diverse and expect tons of content to cater for their needs, with large numbers wanting local, familiar shows starring actors they know and like.

Subscription revenue alone would never fund Netflix running different localised versions in 100 countries and the appeal of English language, mostly US programming is limited because people overwhelmingly want to watch programmes about their police, their politics and their hospitals and not CSI, House of Cards (US) and ER.

Netflix and Amazon can never produce enough programmes with Bradley Walsh or Sarah Lancashire to satisfy UK audiences and replace UK broadcasters as has been predicted repeatedly.

Worse for them, any such shows they did make would have limited appeal outside the UK which runs counter to their business model of securing global rights for all original commissions/purchases.

These services have a limited market which is why shareholders are looking again at Netflix’s future potential growth and some are cashing in now.

[steveh]

Netflix have said they will only commission a local show if they know it will have global appeal and they do not use geography at all in their analysis or recommendations. http://www.wired.com/2016/03/netflix...conquer-world/ Sky's bigger commissions also seem to be increasingly designed to find an audience in all their European territories.

Amazon's Streaming Partners Programme meanwhile is trying to convince every local streaming service to use its service rather than building their own so they can benefit from a massive existing customer base, billing systems, streaming infrastructure and recommendation engines. I'm increasingly thinking they are going to be the bigger challenge to cable and satellite TV. This is a good piece on what they're doing: http://www.videonuze.com/article/ama...gram-this-year

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Now, I think you have become confused, Harry.

There is no contradiction. I have already explained that linear TV is shorthand for our conventional TV channels, as referred to elsewhere on the internet. However, linear programmes will obviously continue (how else would you view sport, for example?). But instead of tuning into a TV channel as now, you would access it through the streaming system that would be there in its place. I hope that is now clear!!

I have been speculating that our traditional TV channels will be pretty well gone in 20 years, but that the infrastructure should be in place by 10 years' time.

I do not expect Sky, VM and BT to be dead by then at all. Where did you pick that up from? All three are likely to offer on demand streaming services with box sets and original series, it's just the means of delivery will be different.

Whether or not BBC ever becomes subscription only will depend on the government of the day, but the Conservatives appear to be very interested in this, and you can bet your bottom dollar on this being a hot topic when the licence fee comes up for renewal in 10 years' time. If that happens, TV audiences will be able to spend that money on services other than those provided by the BBC, if they choose to do so, and this will introduce those with more modest means to the wonders of video streaming from other service providers.

The other questions you raise, such as how many providers will there be, no-one knows, do they? You don't need to have such precise answers to observe the way things are going. However, I have already sent you a link so that you can see the range of the most popular service providers currently in the US.

We don't yet know, for example, whether our existing terrestrial TV channels will pool their resources to establish one comprehensive streaming site for non Sky UK programmes or whether some/all of them go their separate ways (although personally I suspect there will be one for the BBC, one for Sky and another one for the rest).

Haha you have only recently changed you view on what is classed as linear tv, so please stop spouting other wise. Hence, my reasoning behind the Sky, VM, BT statement.

Yup, you have given the American info. I said it was extremely expensive. Take the American info as a base rate, do you see it being more or less expensive, or will it be a similar price. If it is a similar price or higher, why would people choose to pay more for the same content, when they could just stick with how it is now? Also, if you think it will be less, please explain how. Again, it does not need to be precise, just basic figures are fine by me. Your refusal to give even the most basic of figures, is because you know it will be much more expensive than it is now, and as such, people will not change their habits the way you think.

I notice you now say you expect tradition tv channels will be pretty well gone in 20 years. You used to say, quite vehemently, they would be well and truly dead by then, but you never change your mind do you?

Anyway, gotta head back to work soon, but seeings as we a year in to this discussion, can you provide some info on the latest figures as to how people are consuming their viewing? It has not been discussed much recently and I am genuinely interested as to the most recent trend.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ing-tv-in-2015

The popularity of services such as Netflix and Amazon surged last year with the typical British TV fan almost doubling the amount of time spent watching programmes.

The typical British TV viewer watched about 77 minutes a week of shows on subscription video-on-demand services, primarily Netflix and Amazon Prime, in 2015.

This was almost double the 40 minutes a week watched on average in 2014, according to a report published on Thursday by TV industry marketing body Thinkbox.

While the growth rate in the popularity of the TV industry upstarts was impressive, the figures show traditional TV is still king.

Subscription video-on-demand services such as Netflix only accounted for 4% of the 4 hours and 35 minutes per day – 32 hours per week – of video content the average person watched last year.

Traditional TV viewing accounted for 76%, or three hours and 51 minutes per day, close to 28 hours per week.

From the end of the article

While traditional TV still dominates viewing, there has also been growth – albeit only from 24.5 minutes a week to 28 minutes a week on average – in consumption on other devices such as tablets, smartphones and laptops.

“What is remarkable is that in the last decade, when so many new technologies and services have arrived that could have disrupted TV, TV viewing has remained so dominant,” said Clay.

[Mr K]

I've never caught onto streaming TV. It never looks as good quality for one thing. With tv/recordable boxes you can watch whatever you want whenever anyway and bypass the adverts. Price might be the only killer factor for providers like VM.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ing-tv-in-2015



From the end of the article

Thank you, Hugh.

Clearly, conventional channels are safe and doing well in the short term. However, VOD viewing will continue to grow, and this could become very rapid growth within the next decade, with conventional TV channels under strain from decreasing advertising revenues by about five years' time if they do not find alternative revenue streams.

The main commercial channels have already developed their i-players with unskippable ad breaks, and no doubt Sky, Virgin Media and others will ultimately make arrangements to pay for those same players with commercials taken out. Such arrangements will ensure the extended survival of the main channels, but the smaller channels will certainly start feeling the pinch in the foreseeable future unless similar arrangements can be made for them. I would not exclude this possibility, and if it could be made to work, this would address Harry's concerns about access. So those with pay TV would have the commercial free players and those who cannot or will not pay will be able to take the free option with ads.

However, in the longer term, I would expect to see the i-players superceded by Netflix style sites which would offer also extended facilities to access content from previous years.

---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Haha you have only recently changed you view on what is classed as linear tv, so please stop spouting other wise. Hence, my reasoning behind the Sky, VM, BT statement.

Yup, you have given the American info. I said it was extremely expensive. Take the American info as a base rate, do you see it being more or less expensive, or will it be a similar price. If it is a similar price or higher, why would people choose to pay more for the same content, when they could just stick with how it is now? Also, if you think it will be less, please explain how. Again, it does not need to be precise, just basic figures are fine by me. Your refusal to give even the most basic of figures, is because you know it will be much more expensive than it is now, and as such, people will not change their habits the way you think.

I notice you now say you expect tradition tv channels will be pretty well gone in 20 years. You used to say, quite vehemently, they would be well and truly dead by then, but you never change your mind do you?

Anyway, gotta head back to work soon, but seeings as we a year in to this discussion, can you provide some info on the latest figures as to how people are consuming their viewing? It has not been discussed much recently and I am genuinely interested as to the most recent trend.

Look at my original post, which makes very clear that I was comparing 'linear channels' with 'streaming services'. It was your mistake to read more into that than was intended.

In terms of the cost of streaming services, I've already answered the question of what I think will happen with Netflix prices. With the monthly cost increasing to £7.50 per month, this still works out cheaper than the licence fee. The competition between the streaming services should ensure that prices remain reasonable and proportionate to the content available.

I still think that conventional channels will be dead in 20 years. However, there are known unknowns in terms of decisions yet to be made. For example, if the licence fee is retained, the BBC may wish to use the current system to air its range of channels, if they can afford it. However, if the Conservatives are still in power in 10 years, they may baulk at allowing the BBC to incur these additional costs when there are other cheaper, or more popular, methods of showing programmes available.

Hugh has answered your question on viewing preferences.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Look at my original post, which makes very clear that I was comparing 'linear channels' with 'streaming services'. It was your mistake to read more into that than was intended.

In terms of the cost of streaming services, I've already answered the question of what I think will happen with Netflix prices. With the monthly cost increasing to £7.50 per month, this still works out cheaper than the licence fee. The competition between the streaming services should ensure that prices remain reasonable and proportionate to the content available.

I still think that conventional channels will be dead in 20 years. However, there are known unknowns in terms of decisions yet to be made. For example, if the licence fee is retained, the BBC may wish to use the current system to air its range of channels, if they can afford it. However, if the Conservatives are still in power in 10 years, they may baulk at allowing the BBC to incur these additional costs when there are other cheaper, or more popular, methods of showing programmes available.

Hugh has answered your question on viewing preferences.

Ha, it was my mistake?!? Behave. You have spent the best part of 60 pages defending your "original" post. At no stage have you corrected anyone when we have challenged your assumptions until a few pages ago. I would have thought you would been clearer with your thoughts a long time ago, if you were only thinking of broadcast channels dying. Equally, your argument has changed with alarming frequency since your first post, so your first post has been irrelevant for a very long time.

In response to your first post, you will never get a live show "on demand". If it is live, it is linear, and linear TV will still thrive, linear TV channels will still thrive, bundled tv subscriptions with box sets of on demand content will be very popular, Netflix etc will continue to do well.

Moving on to your drastically changed point, if the bulk viewing of linear TV viewing moves to online streaming (which it may well do) and it is cheaper for businesses to run, then, as you have said, linear TV channels will still be operating. If linear TV channels are still operating, and Sky etc are not dead (which you have said they won't be - I fully agree that they will), they will be able to extend there advertizing online, be able to run cheaper linear TV channels on line and offer a lower price point for customers on can't afford Sky currently, but want more than now tv can offer. As such, they can get more money from on line subscribers, and also advertizers. When this happens, people will still be watching conventional broadcast channels, and will be able to continue to do so, because the extra revenue gained from online profits, will be able to offset some of the potential losses from conventional tv channels. Even you wish to disregard the thought of online subsidizing conventional, if the bulk of viewing linear tv moves online, the viewership will still be the same, and as a result, the ad revenues wont change, thus no need for the channels to die.

Which ever way you wish to skin this particular cat, conventional broadcast will still be around in 20 years. More importantly, your many, many assumptions, which have mutated drastically, are still deeply flawed.

With the regards the cost of Netflix, some weeks ago you said the cheapest Netflix subscription, without the decent content, will be £11. Are you now saying the cheapest price it will be in 20 years is still going to be £7.50?

You clearly don't have a clue on how to answer the question of price so I will let it go.

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ing-tv-in-2015



From the end of the article

Thanks Hugh, still vast amounts of work VOD before overtakes linear - not that it ever will or has the intention to do so.

As the article say, it is surprising, given the relative affordability and the recent attention cord cutting has had, and the availability of now tv, the number of ways it can be watched, it still is not having much of an effect on conventional viewing.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Ha, it was my mistake?!? Behave. You have spent the best part of 60 pages defending your "original" post. At no stage have you corrected anyone when we have challenged your assumptions until a few pages ago. I would have thought you would been clearer with your thoughts a long time ago, if you were only thinking of broadcast channels dying. Equally, your argument has changed with alarming frequency since your first post, so your first post has been irrelevant for a very long time.

In response to your first post, you will never get a live show "on demand". If it is live, it is linear, and linear TV will still thrive, linear TV channels will still thrive, bundled tv subscriptions with box sets of on demand content will be very popular, Netflix etc will continue to do well.

Moving on to your drastically changed point, if the bulk viewing of linear TV viewing moves to online streaming (which it may well do) and it is cheaper for businesses to run, then, as you have said, linear TV channels will still be operating. If linear TV channels are still operating, and Sky etc are not dead (which you have said they won't be - I fully agree that they will), they will be able to extend there advertizing online, be able to run cheaper linear TV channels on line and offer a lower price point for customers on can't afford Sky currently, but want more than now tv can offer. As such, they can get more money from on line subscribers, and also advertizers. When this happens, people will still be watching conventional broadcast channels, and will be able to continue to do so, because the extra revenue gained from online profits, will be able to offset some of the potential losses from conventional tv channels. Even you wish to disregard the thought of online subsidizing conventional, if the bulk of viewing linear tv moves online, the viewership will still be the same, and as a result, the ad revenues wont change, thus no need for the channels to die.

Which ever way you wish to skin this particular cat, conventional broadcast will still be around in 20 years. More importantly, your many, many assumptions, which have mutated drastically, are still deeply flawed.

With the regards the cost of Netflix, some weeks ago you said the cheapest Netflix subscription, without the decent content, will be £11. Are you now saying the cheapest price it will be in 20 years is still going to be £7.50?

You clearly don't have a clue on how to answer the question of price so I will let it go.

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------



Thanks Hugh, still vast amounts of work VOD before overtakes linear - not that it ever will or has the intention to do so.

As the article say, it is surprising, given the relative affordability and the recent attention cord cutting has had, and the availability of now tv, the number of ways it can be watched, it still is not having much of an effect on conventional viewing.

Harry, black is not white, and I clearly stated 'linear channels' in my original post. Clue: Look closely and digest the second word.

How can it possibly be the case that linear viewing will cease when this is how we watch the news and football, for example? Of course I didn't mean what you are implying. I think, Harry, you are just being argumentative, naughty boy!

Maybe some day you will tell me which of my arguments have changed so much over the course of this thread as I think this must be a figment of your imagination. If you list them, I can put the record straight for you.

In my last post, I was referring to the new price of Netflix that has been announced, not my forecast price, but then you know that. No doubt you have worked out that £11 per month is also cheaper than the licence fee, so I am not sure what point you were trying to make.

Also in your response to Hugh, there is agreement between us that conventional viewing is still going strong. However, this is now. The scenario we are looking at is what will happen in the future.

As to what the price of Netflix will be in 20 years, how the hell would I know? Do you have the projected inflation figures for 20 years into the future?

Didn't think so...

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Harry, black is not white, and I clearly stated 'linear channels' in my original post. Clue: Look closely and digest the second word.

How can it possibly be the case that linear viewing will cease when this is how we watch the news and football, for example? Of course I didn't mean what you are implying. I think, Harry, you are just being argumentative, naughty boy!

Maybe some day you will tell me which of my arguments have changed so much over the course of this thread as I think this must be a figment of your imagination. If you list them, I can put the record straight for you.

In my last post, I was referring to the new price of Netflix that has been announced, not my forecast price, but then you know that. No doubt you have worked out that £11 per month is also cheaper than the licence fee, so I am not sure what point you were trying to make.

Also in your response to Hugh, there is agreement between us that conventional viewing is still going strong. However, this is now. The scenario we are looking at is what will happen in the future.

As to what the price of Netflix will be in 20 years, how the hell would I know? Do you have the projected inflation figures for 20 years into the future?

Didn't think so...

Yup, you did say linear channels (clue: look closely and digest the first word) which broadcast linear TV. the loss one of one, leads to the loss of the other. If myself and others have misinterpreted your thoughts, why on earth have you kept this thread running for so long, why not just explain your thoughts better to us? Boredom? Trolling? Or just wanting to have a chat?

The first argument that changed was the 10 years statement. I am not going to trawl through all the other posts to find others. although you did present three different arguments on how you thought streaming services would be paid for, each time you changed your mind when I gave reasons why they would not be fair for everyone. You also said the BBC should be pay per view, and you changed your mind again, when I challenged you on how expensive it would be to just one show. You no longer seem to think everyone in the country will be able to watch anything they want it in 10 years. You also said all content companies would launch streaming services, and would replace linear channels.

The point I am making about Netflix, is that you have this vision of what the world will look in 20 years (although you have often said you don't know how things will look in 20 years, when questioned a bit deeper on your thoughts) but will not put together basic figures/ideas for scrutiny.

Now seeings as you ignored a large chunk of my previous post, would care to respond to the rest of it - in which I foolishly try to continue this discussion with you on the future linear to channels, rather than respond with a pretty pointless post.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Yup, you did say linear channels (clue: look closely and digest the first word) which broadcast linear TV. the loss one of one, leads to the loss of the other. If myself and others have misinterpreted your thoughts, why on earth have you kept this thread running for so long, why not just explain your thoughts better to us? Boredom? Trolling? Or just wanting to have a chat?

The first argument that changed was the 10 years statement. I am not going to trawl through all the other posts to find others. although you did present three different arguments on how you thought streaming services would be paid for, each time you changed your mind when I gave reasons why they would not be fair for everyone. You also said the BBC should be pay per view, and you changed your mind again, when I challenged you on how expensive it would be to just one show. You no longer seem to think everyone in the country will be able to watch anything they want it in 10 years. You also said all content companies would launch streaming services, and would replace linear channels.

The point I am making about Netflix, is that you have this vision of what the world will look in 20 years (although you have often said you don't know how things will look in 20 years, when questioned a bit deeper on your thoughts) but will not put together basic figures/ideas for scrutiny.

Now seeings as you ignored a large chunk of my previous post, would care to respond to the rest of it - in which I foolishly try to continue this discussion with you on the future linear to channels, rather than respond with a pretty pointless post.

Linear channels is what I said, and I have explained what I meant by that, Harry.

I have also explained that I believe the infrastructure would support the whole UK population being able to stream what they wanted to watch within 10 years, with linear CHANNELS not likely to continue to exist in 20.

Actually, despite what you say, I have tried to answer or comment on the various aspects of your incredibly long posts, but I feel we are going round in circles.

Regarding the BBC, I think it is now clear that the current government wants to abolish the BBC licence fee. My view is as it always has been, that we are likely to change to a subscription based model. The back library will be available on a PPV basis (this is already happening with BBC Store, so I was right about that). It is also possible that the government may allow advertising on the BBC, but if they go down the route of unskippable commercials, there would be an adverse reaction from the population. However, this may be an option that can be applied to viewers who take the decision not to subscribe.

To suggest that I have changed my mind on the premise of the argument is just wrong. I have answered your questions regarding different scenarios but then you incorrectly assume I have accepted your scenario and you say I've changed my mind.

Once again, I think we are just going to have to accept that we are never going to agree about this. Now we will have to wait and see.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is also possible that the government may allow advertising on the BBC, but if they go down the route of unskippable commercials, there would be an adverse reaction from the population.

Highly unlikely, the biggest "adverse reaction" would be from Sky, ITV, Five and Channel 4 who would not welcome the competition for advertising money.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The back library will be available on a PPV basis (this is already happening with BBC Store, so I was right about that).

BBC Store was first announced in October 2013. It needed no special insight for you to predict it in January 2015. Also the Store adds nothing to what's long been available via iTunes, save the BBC branding.

You also said - in your very first post on this thread

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

the implication being that you cannot show live stuff on demand

which suggests you have never really understood the terms your using - on demand and live streaming are not the same thing.

You can watch last night's EastEnders on demand from the iPlayer but when you're watching something that's happening now or using iPlayer to watch the episode which is also currently being shown on BBC One it's streaming.

Maybe if you stuck to the widely accepted and understood definitions of these two very different words people would find it easier to follow your claim?

One thing you have repeatedly said is that on demand services will make traditional broadcasters' business financially unviable but now you seem to be saying they'll remain but as streamed services?

But if you are, I've already shown you how streaming is MORE expensive than broadcasting via DSAT and DTT for the channel operator where the costs are fixed regardless of how many are watching.

Perhaps the best way forward would be if you typed a single post restating your case, remembering to use on demand and streaming correctly?

Suspect it would help clear a lot of this up. Or at least clarify where you're wrong.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TVWatcher

Highly unlikely, the biggest "adverse reaction" would be from Sky, ITV, Five and Channel 4 who would not welcome the competition for advertising money.

Yes, but the likes of Sky can't dictate to the BBC or the government how the funding is set up. The commercial channels complain about the unfair advantage the BBC has with the amount of money collected from the licence fee, so they can't legitimately complain when the government puts in place a commercial alternative.

BBC Store was first announced in October 2013. It needed no special insight for you to predict it in January 2015. Also the Store adds nothing to what's long been available via iTunes, save the BBC branding.

I haven't claimed any 'special insight'. I was responding to Harry, who appeared to be questioning the suggestion that the BBC would ever make its programmes available on this basis. The fact of BBC Store shows that I was right to mention it. I am not claiming to have mystical powers to foretell the future!

You also said - in your very first post on this thread

I was referring to what others were saying, actually.

which suggests you have never really understood the terms your using - on demand and live streaming are not the same thing.

You can watch last night's EastEnders on demand from the iPlayer but when you're watching something that's happening now or using iPlayer to watch the episode which is also currently being shown on BBC One it's streaming.

I would question your definitions, but whatever, this interesting subject about the future has been dogged by nitpicking and it is taking the focus off the subject. I think most people reading this thread know exactly wha I am talking about.

Maybe if you stuck to the widely accepted and understood definitions of these two very different words people would find it easier to follow your claim?

I assume you have been reading other articles on the web which are using exactly the same terminology. Linear channels are widely understood to refer to our traditional broadcast channels, however this and other references I've made may annoy you.

One thing you have repeatedly said is that on demand services will make traditional broadcasters' business financially unviable but now you seem to be saying they'll remain but as streamed services?

Again, you are twisting what I have said. It's the traditional chanels that I am saying will ultimately disappear, not organisations such as Sky or ITV. They will simply move to VOD.

But if you are, I've already shown you how streaming is MORE expensive than broadcasting via DSAT and DTT for the channel operator where the costs are fixed regardless of how many are watching.

That is irrelevant. The fact is, watching content by VOD is becoming more popular and all the channels are focussing more on that side of things now. Why would they wish to add to their costs by duplicating all of this on conventional channels? They would only do this if the advertising revenue made it sensible to do so. As more people move over to VOD to get their content, advertising revenue from our conventional channels will decline.

Perhaps the best way forward would be if you typed a single post restating your case, remembering to use on demand and streaming correctly?

Suspect it would help clear a lot of this up. Or at least clarify where you're wrong.

Sorry, TV Watcher, but if this thread is confusing you, I don't know what else I can say that will clarify matters for you. The definitions I have used are pretty interchangeable, for example, you can refer to live VOD or live streaming, both of which are linear, just like our conventional broadcast channels. Most resders of this thread don't want to read about the technical terms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry, TV Watcher, but if this thread is confusing you, I don't know what else I can say that will clarify matters for you.

Oh I'm not at all confused, I'm quite clear that you have very little you're talking about hence why you repeatedly use 'streaming' and 'on demand' / 'VOD' as if they're inter-changeable terms for the same thing when they're not.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry, TV Watcher, but if this thread is confusing you, I don't know what else I can say that will clarify matters for you. The definitions I have used are pretty interchangeable, for example, you can refer to live VOD or live streaming, both of which are linear, just like our conventional broadcast channels. Most resders of this thread don't want to read about the technical terms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand

Originally Posted by TVWatcher

Oh I'm not at all confused, I'm quite clear that you have very little you're talking about hence why you repeatedly use 'streaming' and 'on demand' / 'VOD' as if they're inter-changeable terms for the same thing when they're not.

For the purposes of this thread, they are pretty similar and I don't know why you would want to confuse the debate with unnecessary technical detail.

Is there really anybody out there who does not understand that I am referring to on demand services (as shown on our VM menus) and the video services provided by Amazon, Netflix, etc?

I think just about everyone does, and so this debate over precise technical terms is not helpful, or indeed enjoyable, for non teckies to follow. You are pulling at hairs and ignoring the thrust of the argument. If I have technically used the wrong term, I don't think most people are bothered or would even perceive the difference.

All anyone needs to understand in my argument is my assertion that VOD and streaming services will take over from our conventional broadcast channels.

I think most people have figured that out.