The future of television

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You misunderstand my understanding, ol’ chap.



If we are talking about sport, I have acknowledged already that access to these events is too costly, but it’s not exactly cheap on Sky either. However, I think prices will come down as the markets consolidate.

As far as general entertainment goes, it has become much cheaper than to subscribe to Sky’s multi- channel packages and the choice is much greater, particularly when you factor in the ability to change streamers as often as every month.

The streamers are now talking to each other about consolidating or bundling different streamers to provide better choices at less cost for the consumer. The same will happen in the sports arena over time, probably sooner rather than later.




Nonsense, jfman. The Beeb is already well on the way in their planning for the replacement of their TV channels within a decade in favour of a streamer for example, and it is most likely that our existing broadcast system will be turned off in 2035. You’re just ignoring the facts to prolong your wet dream that the channels are here to stay forever. I’m afraid you are going to have to content yourself with a miriad of inferior FAST channels to feast on in the future.



That depends how they bundle it. As you know, bundling channels means more choice for less expenditure, which is how the multi-channel system on Sky works. Unfortunately, this system is falling apart due to the fact that so many programmes are going straight to the streamers, leaving the channels floundering to put anything decent on.

The streamer bundles will have plenty of choice with decent material. I dare say there will be the option to take just one streamer, or alternatively, the whole caboosh for a lower price than subscribing individually. We will have to see how that pans out.

Hopefully, there will also be subscriptions with ads options for those who cannot fork out too much on this or who simply don’t want to.

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------



So? New legislation would fix that, but I have already said that it could still be made to work with the government paying content providers for showing the content they want people to have. This could be done programme by programme or a binding commitment between the provider and the government to show a given percentage of programmes of a given kind.

Do you have a link to that, please? The latest statement of direction (September 2023) I can find from the BBC (and ITV and Paramount) seems to contradict that, by stating they would, as part of the change of delivery method, still supply the existing channels over streaming…

https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2023...-streaming-age

Set for launch in 2024, the new service, called Freely, will be built-in to the next generation of smart TVs and feature a line-up of public service broadcaster content and other free-to-air channels. It will replicate the terrestrial TV experience, building on the heritage and popularity of the Freeview TV platform, currently used in 16m homes.

Dame Carolyn McCall, CEO, ITV, says: "As more and more UK households use internet-connected TVs, it's critical that the public service broadcaster channels remain available and easy for them to find. This new collaboration enables the UK public to continue to get all of their favourite British TV channels, for free - just as Freeview did at the advent of digital TV. Alongside the important reforms set out in the draft Media Bill it will help PSBs to continue to thrive for years to come."

Maria Kyriacou, President of Broadcast & Studios, International Markets at Paramount, says: "We know that British audiences continue to have a strong appetite for the high quality, relevant and impartial content provided by our UK public service broadcasters such as Channel 5. This new collaboration across the PSBs will ensure that, as these viewers continue to shift to IP enabled televisions, they continue to have an easy way to access the channels and content they know and love."

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You misunderstand my understanding, ol’ chap.

If we are talking about sport, I have acknowledged already that access to these events is too costly, but it’s not exactly cheap on Sky either. However, I think prices will come down as the markets consolidate.

As far as general entertainment goes, it has become much cheaper than to subscribe to Sky’s multi- channel packages and the choice is much greater, particularly when you factor in the ability to change streamers as often as every month.

So the choice is only greater (and cheaper) if you chop and change what products you have at a given time meaning you will have a reduced choice at any given time and instead by restricted to that one (or two) services taken at a given time.

It’s difficult to argue that represents better value if you have to reduce your convenience (or arrange your viewing by month depending on what you subscribe to).

The streamers are now talking to each other about consolidating or bundling different streamers to provide better choices at less cost for the consumer. The same will happen in the sports arena over time, probably sooner rather than later.

That’s a roundabout way of saying “the streamers” are discussing their failing business models. They know, as well as the rest of this forum, there isn’t an appetite except (bizarrely) from you for the ever increasing fragmentation of the pay-tv market. “The streamers” can only dream of the economies of scale of traditional pay-tv platforms and jettisoning their failed business models are the first step towards changing that. However, there’s no evidence that it will increase choice (or reduce costs) to consumers in the marketplace.

Nonsense, jfman. The Beeb is already well on the way in their planning for the replacement of their TV channels

Source?

within a decade in favour of a streamer for example, and it is most likely that our existing broadcast system will be turned off in 2035. You’re just ignoring the facts to prolong your wet dream that the channels are here to stay forever. I’m afraid you are going to have to content yourself with a miriad of inferior FAST channels to feast on in the future.

I have to content myself with no such thing, OB. As a pay-tv subscriber with a traditional service and multiple (including international) streaming services my choices will be catered for regardless of outcome. Like a rational consumer in the marketplace I’ll go with the best products regardless of technology.

I’m not sitting there like a Scooby Doo villain with a spreadsheet thinking “aha! If I take Netflix and Discovery Plus in month one, Prime and Apple TV in month two… etc, keep Now TV for Sky Movies throughout I’ll be 100% streaming, pay more, have less convenience but I’ll prove those pesky kids on CF wrong!”

I’m completely agnostic as to what happens in the future. It’s your confusion, and dare I say deranged obsession, that keeps these threads going.

That depends how they bundle it. As you know, bundling channels means more choice for less expenditure, which is how the multi-channel system on Sky works. Unfortunately, this system is falling apart due to the fact that so many programmes are going straight to the streamers, leaving the channels floundering to put anything decent on.

I don’t know what TV you watch OB but there’s plenty of choice on Sky. The only thing floundering is the revenue levels of the “streamers” hence their desperation to change the business model.

The streamer bundles will have plenty of choice with decent material. I dare say there will be the option to take just one streamer, or alternatively, the whole caboosh for a lower price than subscribing individually. We will have to see how that pans out.

Hopefully, there will also be subscriptions with ads options for those who cannot fork out too much on this or who simply don’t want to.

it’ll be the premium subscriptions with unskippable ads before you know it. It’ll all one big rug pull but just you keep deluding yourself as you did with “no ads”, “low cost”, etc.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Describing a problem in reverse is not the same thing as producing a solution. ‘All they have to do is …’ is the age-old drone of the pub bore.

I’ve described an alternative means of ensuring the public service broadcasting can continue in line with emerging developments.

You are shrugging your shoulders and telling us nothing can be done. That’s not going to get us anywhere.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’ve described an alternative means of ensuring the public service broadcasting can continue in line with emerging developments.

You are shrugging your shoulders and telling us nothing can be done. That’s not going to get us anywhere.

Who says we have anywhere to go?

You view linear television, which you struggle to define, as a problem to ‘solve’ despite the fact it’s watched by millions of people day in, day out, generating revenues and returning profits to shareholders.

Even going so far as propose Government intervention to either weaken public service broadcasting, mandate public service television over streaming or a combination of both.

The rest of us - rational consumers in the marketplace - are mere observers noting that in the absence of any meaningful benefit to the companies involved there is no reason to not continue all forms of broadcast across all technologies.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you have a link to that, please? The latest statement of direction (September 2023) I can find from the BBC (and ITV and Paramount) seems to contradict that, by stating they would, as part of the change of delivery method, still supply the existing channels over streaming…

https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2023...-streaming-age

This was published in December 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...rector-general

[EXTRACT]

Davie said the BBC was committed to live broadcasting but Britons should prepare for the closure of many standalone channels and radio stations by the 2030s: “Over time this will mean fewer linear broadcast services and a more tailored joined-up online offer.”

The future will involve “bringing the BBC together in a single offer”, possibly in the form of one app combining everything from television programmes to local news coverage and educational material. This could ultimately see the end of distinct brands such as BBC One or BBC Radio 4, although the programmes they currently air could continue online.

I see Freely as being an intermediate step towards a streaming only future. I acknowledge that you see it differently.

---------- Post added at 09:08 ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Who says we have anywhere to go?

You view linear television, which you struggle to define, as a problem to ‘solve’ despite the fact it’s watched by millions of people day in, day out, generating revenues and returning profits to shareholders.

Even going so far as propose Government intervention to either weaken public service broadcasting, mandate public service television over streaming or a combination of both.

The rest of us - rational consumers in the marketplace - are mere observers noting that in the absence of any meaningful benefit to the companies involved there is no reason to not continue all forms of broadcast across all technologies.

I accept that you have a mental block on any notion of change, jfman, so I am not going around in yet another circle. The arguments have all been had. Just stand back and watch what happens.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I accept that you have a mental block on any notion of change, jfman, so I am not going around in yet another circle. The arguments have all been had. Just stand back and watch what happens.

No mental block here, OB.

I’ve been clear throughout my view on how I think the market will evolve. Differently and much more slowly than your fanciful, and unevidenced, speculation that often involve claims of commitments from major players that haven’t actually been made, claims aren’t meaningfully binding and claims of unquantified savings from ending linear broadcasting.

Your absolutist view leaves you blind to the fact markets often evolve much more slowly, and ‘inferior’ technologies remain much more stubborn when they are the established standard, based on the real world habits (and spending) consumers actually do.

You say you don’t want to go round in circles yet the next digital marketing blog, or report paid for by a steaming conglomerate, promoting their own products over others will be held up as gospel that the end is nigh.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This was published in December 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...rector-general

[EXTRACT]

Davie said the BBC was committed to live broadcasting but Britons should prepare for the closure of many standalone channels and radio stations by the 2030s: “Over time this will mean fewer linear broadcast services and a more tailored joined-up online offer.”

The future will involve “bringing the BBC together in a single offer”, possibly in the form of one app combining everything from television programmes to local news coverage and educational material. This could ultimately see the end of distinct brands such as BBC One or BBC Radio 4, although the programmes they currently air could continue online.

I see Freely as being an intermediate step towards a streaming only future. I acknowledge that you see it differently.

---------- Post added at 09:08 ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 ----------


I accept that you have a mental block on any notion of change, jfman, so I am not going around in yet another circle. The arguments have all been had. Just stand back and watch what happens.

a) your source article appears to have been superseded by my more recent article

b) "fewer linear broadcast services" ≠ "no linear broadcast services"