Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Or 'facts' as they're commonly known.

Steaming linear content is not the same as video on demand because linear content is scheduled and so is no more on demand than tuning to BBC 1 or ITV.

Except that a steamed version of BBC One or ITV is no different than a broadcast version other than being more expensive for the company to operate and so there's no reason why either broadcaster would make that platform shift.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I could make some bombastic statement now regarding the difference between 'steaming' and 'streaming', but I won't, you see, because I know what you meant.

This argument has never been made on the Netflix/Streaming Services thread, so why it should be raised now and made into some big issue, I fail to understand. Whatever you want to call it, I think most people understand the nature of this argument.

Yes, I accept that there is a technical difference between VOD and streaming, but to the man in the Clapham omnibus, they are the same. And it makes absolutely no difference to my argument.

In terms of the point made about conventional channels being cheaper, it should be remembered that the broadcasters are committed and have already switched to VOD/streaming via the players.

My point is that it will not make commercial sense to run both systems when the conventional channels no longer bring in the required amount of advertising revenue unless alternative income streams can be found. This is the whole basis of this thread.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

In other news, missus accidentally took out a trial membership of Amazon Prime last weekend, so we have connected a computer to the TV and have watched almost entirely streamed content for the last 7 days.

We have about another 15 episodes of Outlander to get through before the trial ends. Then it's back to linear TV for us. :D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes Linear TV is strong and well as it will still be in 20 years time and streaming services will be a nice little add on for customers who want a little bit extra on top that just complements their normal Linear TV viewing.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This is what Mike Fries had to say on the subject last August.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/...e-will-decline

"The amount of money Liberty Global spend on linear channel carriage will decline and shift to online rights, digital rights, On Demand rights, and SVOD rights."

This is clearly the trend and I can't see that stopping any time soon. It probably also explains why we aren't getting many new TV channels on Virgin Media these days.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I have no doubts that linear TV will continue Den, live sport itself dictates that it must continue, but you cannot dispute a lot of the points that OB has made with regards to how ppl watch TV nowadays, and in the future, I hardly know anyone who makes a point of watching, say, Coronation Street or that other wrist slitting dark soap called Eastenders, at the time it's scheduled, lots of ppl use on demand or even record these programs so that they can watch them when they choose, gone are the days of having to be sat in front of your TV screen to watch something at the scheduled time.
I think OB was wrong when he said that linear TV wouldn't be around in 20 years or so, but he has made valid points with regards to on demand and how ppl watch TV, it's definitely changing imo.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Linear TV will always be around, but in my opinion, linear TV channels will not be.

In the future we will be watching linear TV via streaming services.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm sure Hugh replied to my post a few hours ago, but it seems to have disappeared!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

i did, but the CBA factor took over, so I removed it... ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

TBH i can't remember the last time i connected a ariel or sattelite to my tv, my tv is all via on demand services and live streams as many know i have a USA tv sub.
Directv have announced plans to launch a online service as have comcast too, interesting times ahead i think.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Interesting to see a VOD service looking to expand to include linear channel content:

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201605034...#axzz47axSsG9Y

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's a sensible thing to do while linear TV channels remain popular.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB, I am sorry my incredibly long posts (which yours never are, obviously) are too much for you, as you said in your last response to me, perhaps you would actually like to discuss the topic you have been desperate for us all to talk about. So let's discuss my quote you have not yet discussed, and discuss that only. After all, the less drivel you write, the less I have to respond to, and as a result there will be shorter posts.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There will be no distinction between linear and broadcast tv in James Murdoch's plans for the future.

http://advanced-television.com/2016/...t-consumption/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Looks like YouTube is joining the linear TV streaming party next year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...rvice-for-2017

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 ----------

I think that's pretty much what a lot of us on this thread have been saying.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Can anyone make sense of this?
It's like something from one of those random buzzword generators!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think he's saying that the focus will be more on content and not how you access it (ie through conventional channels, on demand and streaming).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Will it though the article states they have no agreements in place. The studios seem set to do this via Hulu do they need Youtube ?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Another boost for broadband-delivered channels in the UK. Freesat has been cleared to allow pay sports channels on its platform via broadband. This could work out well for sports subscribers looking to downgrade from Sky.
http://cdn.freesat.co.uk/freesat/fre...016%5B2%5D.pdf

I hear what you say but the article says "The project, for which YouTube has already overhauled its technical architecture, is one of the online video giant’s biggest priorities and is slated to debut as soon as 2017, one of the people said." "YouTube has been working on an online cable package since at least 2012, one of the people said, but these plans have taken on new urgency in the past few months."
I guess the benefits of YouTube suggested in the article are:
1) Potential large market "While Apple, Amazon and Google have frustrated media companies over the years with on-and-off content negotiations, they are more popular among young consumers than any cable company. These technology giants also have a large reservoir of customers buying their devices, and each sells a set-top box to stream video from apps like Netflix Inc. and Hulu."
2) "large media companies expect new providers to pay more per channel than existing partners Comcast and AT&T Inc." So if the TV companies could sell more profitably via YouTube than Hulu then they could be tempted to do so.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Although no respite for the wallets of football fans, the majority of whom take Sky Sports for the Premiership football.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I guess if Now TV goes on there then the minimum monthly price for Sky Sports would be £32 pm v about £50pm for Sky Sports with a base pack on the Sky platform. So that's a £240 annual saving if you subscribe every month. The saving increases to £300 per year if you take Now TV for 10 months of the year only to mirror the Premier League season.
I guess that this situation could give Sky a dilemma - would it be better or worse for Sky to offer Sky Sports through Now TV on Freesat?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

64% of 18-34 year olds choose streaming over legacy pay tv channels.

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201605204...#axzz49DpQNJl6

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And the vast majority still watch linear TV......

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Source?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Here we are MM.

https://www.themediabriefing.com/art...trends-to-know

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Cheers, but how do those figures match up to what OB posted??

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

He is basing his argument on what young people watch and not what the majority watch so l thought a bit of balance was needed.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I know what you mean, but i'd tend to go along with OB's previous posts with regards to linear TV declining pretty rapidly in 20 years time or so, because if 64% of 18-34 year olds are using streaming or on demand services today, then it would seem that those habits would continue into later life, which imo would strengthen OB's prediction.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I don't disagree that the majority of people are currently watching 'old fashioned' TV, Den. I have never doubted this, nor the likelihood that this will continue to be the case in the short term.

However, the 18-34 year olds will be 38-54 year olds in 20 years' time and by then the landscape will look completely different.

My Grandkids are frustrated with conventional channels because you can't fast forward them and you can't access what you want when you want. Nearly everything they watch nowadays is through on demand/streaming and recordings. My 10 year old grandson will be 30 in 20 years.

It doesn't take a genius to see the way things are going, but statistics that show the majority of the TV audience currently watch conventional channels does not interfere in any way with the premise of this thread, which is about the future, not the present.

Looking at the direction of travel, I don't understand why some people are in denial that our conventional TV channels will be in trouble in the not too distant future.

---------- Post added at 20:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------

Correct, and their way of viewing will rub off on a substantial proportion of the older generation too, just as internet shopping has taken off in all age groups.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Have you actually read the article OB? I would suggest it is clear you have not.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yup - the article is based on a false dichotomy.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Tbf i can't remember the last time i watched linear tv, i can't even remember last time i had a areil or sattelite connected, all my tv is done via on demand and online.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

and i would suggest you took your head out of the sand! It's pretty easy to understand Harry, these young ppl, 18-34 year olds, of today, will carry on what they do now in 20 years time, so linear TV will defo still exist, but not as much as it does now.

---------- Post added at 00:35 ---------- Previous post was at 00:34 ----------


Did you read that Harry?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well in our household , our parents household , my sisters household and so on and so on linear TV is very very much the number one.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The inference is that "young people" do things differently and when they get older, demographics will see to it that linear TV dies off.

This is based on the incorrect assumption that young people's habits at home persist into adulthood and on into their settled years as homeowners and parents.

When I was 18 I watched TV mostly in my bedroom, because I didn't have my own house, nor control of my own living room. Today I don't even have a TV in my bedroom. There's no need. My kids, however, steam a lot of stuff to their tablets, in their bedrooms, especially in the evening when I'm hogging the TV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Your point being...?

Yes, I did notice that the older generation was currently choosing to relate more to conventional TV. You are failing to grasp the point that, as the younger generation comes through into older age, they will be used to relating to the TV in a different way.

---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------

To the older generation, all this is new and many either find it more difficult to understand or don't really know where to start. However, it will be familiar and much more straight forward to our younger generation as they move into more advanced years.

Perhaps you can tell me why you think that the younger generation, as they get older, would want to substitute their world of on demand without ads for the more conventional model of scheduled TV full of irritating commercial breaks in their busy lives? True, some will do this, but I am certain that the majority will not. This is certainly being borne out in my experience, seeing how my daughters' friends watch TV in an entirely different way to your way, Chris.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB ... as I have said repeatedly over the past year and more: all these arguments have been covered already, even this one. Please trouble yourself to read back over the thread. I'm rather too busy for this right now.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not at all, Hugh. That same division of the way people watch TV is very apparent to me in my experience, and I do have a wide circle of friends and acquaintences to draw on in making that assessment.

Yes, the article is based on forced preferences, but it is interesting to see the choices people make when they can only choose one or the other. It certainly provides the basis for believing that viewer habits are changing significantly.

---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------

Thanks so much for clarifying, Chris, I thought you may have forgotten! :D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But based on a biased question. A survey of pay-streaming vs. pay-tv may have been more useful.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Agreed, Spiderplant, and a forced choice between conventional channels and on demand/streaming would have been even more interesting.

However, the problem with that is that a fair proportion of the population does not take pay tv in any of its forms and so have not experienced either yet.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The number of pay tv subscribers in the UK is growing...

http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/ne...-million-00494

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

E veryone has different preferences mate i disagree with the 20-34 year old part (not posted by you btw lol) i'm 36 and do not watch linear tv, ofcourse i'm probably in a minority in my age range lol but tv is certainly starting to change.
Linear tv will always be here that will never go anywhere but i think in the future we may see less linear channels and much more online services, both will co-exist alongside each other quite happily.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

lol, yes thanks.

---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 00:33 ---------- Previous post was 21-05-2016 at 23:58 ----------

Why are you still continuing with this thread? I think we (now) all broadly agree that linear TV will continue for a long time, and no one denies linear TV will be streamed over the internet by more and more people in the future.

My point being, your statement, unsurprisingly, made no sense in relation to the article. The survey is deeply, deeply flawed. It forced a limited scenario on people and made them choose. What was the definition of a streaming service? Is Now TV a streaming service in this survey? If so, surely it can be classed as pay TV too? Where was the option for people to choose neither and stick with freeview? What were the price points of streaming services compared to pay tv? What happens if people can't afford either? (I know you won't be able to answer these, I am just highlighting how stupid the survey is.)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This is exactly why I proposed that we use this thread to post how things are actually moving in relation to on demand/streaming tv. There are to sides to the argument about whether or not our conventional broadcast channels will eventually disappear and after all this time there is no sign of an agreement on this. However, this thread has (at the time of writing) enjoyed over 65,000 hits, and it continues to rise, so there is not an inconsiderable amount of interest in this subject.

As you say, I think we do all agree that linear TV will continue, because without it, we couldn't watch live events. However, and as you well know, my proposition is that linear TV will eventually come into our living rooms via streaming rather than broadcast on channels such as ITV.

The article was not 'deeply flawed'. Yes, it was based on forced choices, but the article was very clear about that. It was intended to draw out the way people thought about how they would prefer to watch TV. If you want actual viewing figures, and how they are split between broadcast channels and on demand/ streaming, there are plenty of articles on that.

As for my statement 'not making sense in relation to the article', I will leave others to judge. If you read my statement and then read the article as intended, it makes perfect sense.

As for this obsession with definitions, I have already pointed out that in common parlence, on demand and streaming tend to be regarded as one and the same, and linear TV is taken to mean conventional broadcast channels. Technically, there are differences, of course, but the way I have been referring to methods of viewing is no different from the very many articles that have been written about it or the way the average man in the street sees it.

You reckon the survey is 'deeply flawed' but you are not really in a position to say that at all. To the best of my knowledge, you have not actually seen this survey or read the definitions attached to it, you have just read the article which summarises this work. And you accuse me of jumping to conclusions, Harry! :nono:

Pots and kettles come to mind....! :D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Old Boy may like this article.
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...-distribution/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, good article, bringing out the point that linear TV channels will have to re-invent themselves to survive. I'm not sure how they will do this in order to retain sufficient viewers, which is why I have been pessimistic about their ability survive. Maybe one of the answers is more interactive programmes so that viewers can participate, which you cannot do with on demand.

Where I disagree with the item is the assertion that live tv can only be broadcast via linear tv channels. We have discussed already the fact that live tv can be streamed.

Talking of which....

http://www.csimagazine.com/csi/Faceb...ball-match.php

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Nice to see you still have your rose tinted glasses on OB.;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

A stream dedicated to live programming *is* a linear TV channel, OB. You keep doing semantic back-flips in order to try to claim it's something that it's not, because aside from all other arguments about power consumption, bandwidth availability and viewer habits, this one fact is the one that comprehensively demonstrates your original predictions must be false.

It makes no difference whether the broadcast is over terrestrial, satellite, coaxial cable or IP. A live channel, requiring by its nature a schedule, is a linear channel.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You know very well, Chris, that the comparison is with the conventional linear TV channels.

Forgive my shorthand, but I don't think most people are concerned with the semantics you are employing to avoid the subject.

To be clear, there is no dispute that a live channel includes streaming. However, the user does notice a very big difference between the two. So if the conventional TV channels are replaced entirely by on demand and streaming services, this will make a big difference to the perception of TV viewing to the man in the street.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

No - I'm holding you to your original argument, not the one you've subtly shifted on to and hoped nobody would notice (bad luck, we did ;) ).

That is precisely the semantic gymnastics I'm talking about. There is nothing in your original postings, over the first couple of months of this thread, that will back up your claim that you were actually referring to broadcast technology rather than the linear nature of programming. Quite the opposite in fact.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Err,, if you look at his 2nd post onwards, he is actually talking about viewing on demand programmes but based on a linear schedule. Such a "channel" could not be broadcast, so he has been consistent.

He may get confused about whether something is broadcast or not, or whether a programme is live or not, but he has been pretty consistent all along.

Linear programmes aka live shows, will be around probably forever. I don't see live news, football stopping anytime soon. But whether linear tv channels will be around in the years and decades ahead is arguable. Very. All the evidence says they won't.

The only real mistake he made was in his first post in thinking that the BBC was going to be launching some revolutionary new show that would blur the lines between linear tv and on demand. I thought the same as him.

I assumed we would be able to go into iplayer, on demand, and watch Victoria Derbyshire live. That was wrong, but it is clear what he was saying from the very beginning.

I'm on Old Boy's side on this one!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thank you, Horizon. Chris knows what I mean but I'm afraid he is being deliberately argumentative.

The points he makes I have answered on a number of occasions now. I am really not trying to avoid the issues and he has made some useful points about capacity.

The language I have used is populist rather than technical and I apologise for any genuine confusion about that. However, I am certainly not the only one who does this either on the forum or in comparison with other articles.

Most people refer to the BBC iPlayer as an on demand service and fail to distinguish the separate live streaming part of it as anything different.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

.... its because sometimes you are confusing different things, ie using the word streamed, which can have different meanings. When you say streamed, you are thinking of it in on demand terms, I believe. Whereas others here are thinking of it as another way to "broadcast" channels. It can be both and that's one of the things causing confusion. You can have streamed a live linear channel, a non-live linear channel, a live on demand programme and a non-live on demand programme.

======

Where we are at now is a stepping stone. We have linear tv channels, both free and pay tv channels. We also have on demand in its various forms.

THe next step is that the on demand part will get far more intelligent. Over time the menus on Netflix etc will go, perhaps in the medium term with some form of avator that presents a mixture of live, scheduled shows and non-live shows.

Ultimately, you will switch on the tv to watch only one tv "channel". As an example, the tv will know that you like to watch Coronation Street, EastEnders and football. But on this day both EastEnders and the football are on at the same time. So the tv "channel" presents you with Corrie at 7.30pm, live football at 8pm and Eastenders at 10pm.

To all intents and purposes, you have watched a linear schedule on a linear channel, except its nothing of the kind and I reckon this will happen within the next 10-20 years, if not a lot sooner.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

From a technical point of view, streaming is basically a way of downloading a little bit of a file, viewing that bit, then downloading the next bit, viewing that and so on. The advantage of streaming for the user is they don't have to wait for the entire film or show to download (which could be a long time on some connections) before they can watch it. Streaming also allows them to watch live TV (which, of course, would never be possible without streaming as you would never be able to download the whole thing). The advantage of streaming for the provider is that the show or film is only ever stored on their own, secure, storage systems. It is never stored on the user's own systems (which may or may not be secure).

Now that's not true in all instances, as some streaming services do allow downloads (Amazon Video, All 4 and iPlayer spring to mind), but that is streaming from a technical point of view.

It's also worth noting that that definition is not tied to any particular technology or platform. All digital TV services do it, regardless of whether they are broadcast via Satellite, Cable, Terrestrial TV or IPTV over the internet. It's also the same definition used in computing. Games, for instance, often don't load entire levels into memory (even with many gigs of RAM, there wouldn't be room for some game levels). They either load a section of a level or map (the process is often hidden from the user by playing a cut scene while the section is loading), or stream sections into memory as and when needed.

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

True, although it's worth noting that some studies have found that the younger generation is increasingly using TVs to watch TV, while using their tablets and phones (which they previously used to watch TV) to do other stuff.

You are, of course, assuming that the various On Demand services won't insert their own commercial breaks, and stop people watching the stream skipping the ads. Some services already do this (ITV Hub, All 4). Although their CEO said they would never carry ads in this way, your beloved Netflix clarified his comments to say they had no plans to do so at the moment, which implies they are reserving the right to introduce it in the future.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Totally agree, and good post Horizon.........

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thank you, Stuart and Horizon, for explaining the technical differences, these must be the most helpful posts we have seen on here.

As far as Netflix is concerned, Stuart, I don't mind if they include commercials in the future, as long as they always provide a subscription alternative. At least this would ensure that everyone can be included in this digital revolution.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

he also interchangeably and utterly wrongly flips between using On Demand and Streaming as if they're the same thing. They're not.

When I invited him to repost his (probably revised) position on the topic using the correct terms he told me no-one but a few awkward types cared about the different meanings.

And yet they clearly greatly affect his central claim.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Which I have explained on several occasions. Not everyone is too bothered about these differences because the average punter looks at on demand and they look at streaming and they have the same experience. Most will understand the difference between that and our conventional broadcast channels.

Despite going on and on about these fine differences, why not concentrate on what you know is the suggestion - that our conventional broadcast channels will ultimately die off as analogue has done?

Stuart and Horizon have done a good job at explaining those differences so now we can all understand.

Now let's move on, for pity's sake.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Except that as has been pointed out to you before, BT Sport is a linear, scheduled channel which happens to be streamed on BT TV. BBC One is streamed live via iPlayer.

Both are conventional linear, scheduled channels and can be accessed via conventional DSAT or cable, but both are also streamed. The linear channel is not, and cannot be, on demand. Content from both is, of course, available on demand. But than that's not linear.

Words have meanings. Conversations are easiest when people stick to those meanings.

As for your fall back that traditionally broadcast channels via DTT, DSAT and cable will one day vanish or all move online - why?

I've shown you before how the costs of DTT and DSAT are fixed regardless of the numbers of people viewing - why would the broadcasters move to stream them when it costs more the more people who are viewing?

Why would viewers ditch the shows they already love in favour of something else just because it happens to be on demand?

EastEnders fans will continue watching BBC One for as long as Eastenders is on BBC One, ditto ITV and Corrie. Netflix and Amazon don't have those shows and people like to watch them live.

So what real-world event will make them switch?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Your first two paragraphs show how confusing the technical terms are, but I maintain that the distinction between them for the purposes of my very straight forward premise is irrelevant.

The premise is that those channels set out on the EPG will slowly start to disappear.

I am not sure why you are questioning why broadcasters will change to on demand/streaming services. They are doing it already. This is why a question remains about why they would bother maintaining the conventional channels if they were no longer profitable.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Most broadcasters are not "making the change to demand/streaming services", they are offering on demand access to shows already broadcast on linear TV for those who miss them.

In a very small number of cases broadcasters like Sky also run some shows on demand first in order to help raise awareness of their boxset service.

BBC Three is a case all of its own, replicated by no other UK broadcasters, and forced on the BBC by funding cuts.

As for your final line, you must know that's pure BS.

As I said to you weeks ago, linear broadcasting is cheaper for the broadcasters than investing in the kit needed to stream or offer on demand access to everyone at the same time.

There is no foreseeable credible businesses case under which they'd move from fixed costs of broadcasting their output via DTT / DSAT to pumping it all out from hugely expensive data centres.

When you get a grip of the costs associated with doing this you'll understand why your central premise is so wrong.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Err, I think he is genuinely at times getting confused, nothing more than that.

Tv used to be simple, here are the main changes:

1: All tv channels were broadcast over the air, received by an aerial and all tv shows were live.
2: All tv channels were broadcast over the air, received by an aerial and some tv shows were live, some not.
3: Some tv channels were broadcast over the air, some through satellite systems and some through cable systems. Some shows were live, some were not.
4. Some tv channels were broadcast over the air, some through satellite systems and some through cable systems. Some shows were live, some were not. Some shows were available live (or not) via on demand systems on cable and satellite.
5. Some tv channels were broadcast over the air, some through satellite systems and some through cable systems. Some tv channels were streamed over the internet. Some shows were live, some were not. Some shows were available live (or not) via on demand systems on cable and satellite or on the internet.

etc etc and I haven't even mentioned mobile.

The point I am trying to make is tv used to be simple. Now its complicated. I believe it will go full circle and be simple again as far as the viewer is concerned. But the underlying nuts and bolts of how we get tv will be far more complicated than even today.

I do think Old Boy should be given a little, just a little, bit of slack if he gets confused by different terminology to discuss what is an increasingly ever complicated subject.

I happen to think this is the best discussion thread on this forum! Much better than "coming soon" which never comes....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Though arguably BT and TalkTalk's YouView is already the simplification you talk of - one EPG with streamed channels sitting alongside DTT and both alongside paid and free catch-up and VOD.

And with circa 3m customers between them it's clear the platform has some merits.

I have to say, I think he deliberately jumps between the terms knowing that he's using them wrong, in order to distance himself from his original and now abandoned claims.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

In some cases its cheaper yes, especially Freeview. But take cable, as an example, which as a reminder is two-way technology, not one-way like satellite mostly is.

Virgin Media currently, at least in my area, have 48 transport streams or channels available.

Most of these streams can carry several tv channels each, or broadband data as well as some TV/EPG data.

That 48 streams/channels are being "broadcast" into every home in East London that has cable irrelevant of whether the houses are watching all the channels or not. Obviously, no single household is simultaneously watching hundreds of linear tv channels, watching on demand shows and using the internet all at the same tv.

Probably each household at a maximum needs a dozen or so channels, say 20 if you're being very generous and allowing for future 4k services. So, there's at least almost 30 channels of bandwidth being wasted. That's not cheap and it isn't efficient.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes. Cable's different. That's why I didn't include it and said "DTT / DSAT".

Question is, would building out a VoD system to cope with all the simultaneous requests for EastEnders, the Champions League Final, Doctor Who etc be cheaper for Virgin - and the channels who they pass some of the costs on to - than the currently seemingly inefficient method?

I don't know the answer which, again is why I didn't include cable, but if it's not cheaper why would Virgin make that switch? And if it is, can they persuade enough of their users that they want to watch shows as VOD rather than as linear streams?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

No, I'm talking about something, which as yet, doesn't exist. Which is real intelligent tv that merges linear and on demand together.

But as a sidenote, I did lobby the politicians years ago when they were talking about building a digital terrestrial network and urged them to ditch that idea in favour a nationwide fibre optic network instead.

I basically wanted a open cable network, where you could use your own equipment and which used open standards. So, in that respect it would've been similar to what freeview and youview is today.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------

I think watching the main shows like Eastenders on linear channels is going to go on for a long time. And I said before in this thread, perhaps a handful of main terrestrial channels will survive.

I think the imminent threat from on demand services is to the hundreds of pay tv channels that are not on Freeview and aren't widely available beyond Sky and VM. That will be the first battleground.

Spiderplant is the person who knows the best about VM's tv network. Perhaps he may see this thread and chip in. I cannot say with certainty whether it would be cheaper or not for VM to move away from providing masses of linear channels to using mainly on demand services instead.

But as I have said earlier in this thread, you had satellite and cable tv that started to cannibalise the main channels. And now with on demand services like iplayer and netflix, they're starting to erode the viewership of the pay tv channels.

Something has to give somewhere. There cannot all be hundreds of linear channels all happily going about their business and Netflix, Amazon etc all making money too. There has to be casualties.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

:waving:
With a load of paid-for coax already in the ground, providing shared broadcast services is effectively 'free', compared with the considerable expense of putting in switching equipment.

But nobody would build an HFC network from scratch these data. With a new-build fibre network, I'm not sure.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

.....hello....

No, neither am I. And its interesting that VM are doing FTTP now with some of their new build areas.

One more question, Spiderplant, in a all fibre world (yes, I know its not), would there be any need for all the regional headends? Couldn't everything just be pumped from the centre?

Malone is out for serious cost savings for VM and I'm curious as to where he'll get them.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

TBH, I doubt it will be a case of pay a subscription or watch ads. I suspect that (with their headline shows like Orange is the new black) it will be a case of pay a subscription AND watch ads, especially when their subscribers numbers level out (as will happen at some point).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Again not my area of expertise, but it isn't just a case of "pumping stuff out". You also need to get data back in from millions of devices and coalesce it. The speed of light is often a limiting factor in these things - at long distances the round-trip times get too long for the protocols to work properly. Broadcast TV is already mostly centralised.

Anyway, don't hold your breath. VM are currently building a few new hubsites.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

An interesting point of view set out here. Notice the reference to linear TV channels (sorry, couldn't resist!). :D

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...-distribution/

The type of pay-TV that is currently available in most markets will be obsolete in less than 10 years. Subscribers will no longer pay for large bundles of TV channels that offer the same fare as any OTT video catalogue (at often a much higher price).

For non-live pay-TV the go-to service will be a VOD catalogue. We will see more of the sort of Netflixes being created: some with a wide appeal and some with a thematic focus.

Only live TV channels can survive in this Pay TV environment as they can offer some type of exclusivity: ie access to a live event. This will be particularly true for sports. While pay-TV channels around movies, for instance, will decline, we will see more channels that are covering a certain sport. It will also be true for some form of thematic channels where the audience is willing to hand over the ‘programme director’ role to the channel. It entrusts the channel with the power to make the right choice in what it broadcasts; here again it is important to have a professional team to select the content, prepare it and put into context. Content must be current and relevant and somewhat exclusive. This will also enable such channels to charge subscription fees – and if the target audience is of critical mass, platforms will be happy to carry it.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Fair point as far as it goes, I agree that the days of low-value channels leaching subs off larger, more successful ones via bundling are limited. I'd go so far as to say that the practice has only survived for as long as it has because Sky has been very keen to lock as much telly as possible behind its paywall, and because there has historically been a shortage of spot-beam capacity for free-to-air sat broadcast to the UK, which causes rights issues for some content.

But I think you may be underestimating the number of broadcast linear channels that *aren't* pay-tv. A brief look at the Freeview or Freesat EPG will give you an idea.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, I agree with your first paragraph.

On the second, I think it is the non Pay TV channels that will have the most problems as audiences drift away because they are so reliant on income from commercials. That's a lot of channels at risk.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This is Liberty Global's view of the future. Five different scenarios are set out. It would be interesting to hear the comments of Forum members on this, and which (if any) of these scenarios you think are most likely to happen.

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/54851...ionary-change/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes l saw that yesterday MM and what are your thoughts on it?.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Re the telegraph article, its just the BBC trying to remain top dog.

There has been laws stipulating that the terrestrial broadcasters should have prominent positions in the EPG, and the BBC are just trying to maintain this status quo in the on demand/boxsets/internet tv world.

My response to the BBC is that if they want prominent positions on home screens such as SkyQ, then perhaps they should start making some decent dramas like Game of Thrones.

It will not be a particular broadcaster that has prominent positions on home screens, but popular programming.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Totally agree with that, well said.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I guess the BBC wish they had the budget to be able to make shows like GOT ;)

The BBC do make well regarded dramas (US Netflix related forums testify to that) and contrasting them with what is perceived as the best big budget drama is hardly fair.

I think giving the BBC prominence on the terrestrial EPG is fair enough (along with c4, c5 and ITV). But I don't think that gives them the right to prominence on the app screen. After all, who in Britain doesn't know about iplayer? Surely it doesn't need prominence.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

A recent report from Moody's Investors Service suggests that on demand services may force pay TV and television networks to end their linear distribution model.

This of course has been debated on this thread from the start and although there are varying opinions, it is very interesting to see the way this is all going.

Linear TV is in its heyday at the moment. I think we need to make the most of it.

http://advanced-television.com/2016/...ues-to-vex-tv/

OTT services and digital ad platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Sling TV are breaking down the long-standing practice of contractual aggregating and bundling content for distribution through closed-system set-top boxes. This shift from traditionally-scheduled, linear TV to time-shifted, digital, mobile and SVoD streaming platforms reflects dramatically changing habits for consumers, Moody’s says in its report.

According to the report, to compete with OTTs and rapidly growing digital ad platforms for subscribers and advertising revenue, the pay-TV and television networks must end their linear distribution model, offer all programming on-demand with full stacking rights, implement robust search and recommendation interfaces, and implement real-time targeted ad placement focused on the viewer instead of the program.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Oh dear we ain't going down this road again l hope.:nono:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's unavoidable, Den. Whether we like it or not, change is not that far away. Public demand will see to that.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You sound like Darth Sidious my old boy.:Yikes::eeek:

https://memegenerator.net/instance/63203991

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The press release about that Moody's report is here:

https://www.moodys.com/research/Mood...0629_PR_351468

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Interesting takes here on the survival of broadcast TV channels, which should please Chris!

Ultimately, of course the eventual outcome will depend on viewer behaviour.

http://www.csimagazine.com/csi/Broad...s-demandit.php

Broadcast will not die - audiences demand it

What’s more likely, according to an IBC panel convened to discuss what audiences want, is that the technology to broadcast content, if not the linear schedule itself, will be mixed into a hybrid with streaming on-demand.

“I don’t think the business model of creating quality content and marketing content to consumer will change,” said Ericsson's Gordon Castle, Head of Strategy Area Mediacom. “Over 80 per cent of people want packaged content and services from the same provider so there’s really high support for the traditional model. However, the technology itself is declining. We already know that in certain, rural parts of the world a mobile network can compete with fibre and meet the performance of even a fixed connection. For highly popular short/mid-tail content, broadcast technology continues to make the most sense as it’s very cost effective. For VOD and niche linear long-tail TV content, service providers can use broadband unicast to improve efficiency.”

James Alexander, Strategy & Proposition Director - NowTV said the concept of mass TV distribution will linger for some time. “A lot of our communications are associated with a time slot to push people to watch at a certain time of day but we having discussions around just saying the day it is available and giving people the choice of when to watch.”

“People been saying TV will die for a decade or more,” said David Bunker, Head of Projects, BBC Audiences. “People don’t necessarily care if something is only scheduled live but they do care if the content is in the moment and they are able to participate in it.”

Only Niko Waesche, Global Industry Head, Media and Entertainment from GfK differed. “In advanced countries with broadband, broadcast will be gone by 2030. Why would you need it, albeit you would need 100% broadband for regulatory purposes? More likely you will have content that is broadcast and mixed in the STB with ads that are stored locally.

The panellists also challenged the idea that linear TV is doomed.

“Our data says that this is not so,” Waesche said. “Sometimes people want to share the experience. There is a certain need for certain parts of the programme that everyone want to watch.

Fabian Birgfeld, Founder and Director - W12 Studios, said that the concept of a channel curated by time is a strong one. “It’s still by far the easiest way to consume content. People gravitate back to playlists and order. Traditionally that’s been done by broadcasters and that is probably doomed but other brands could be taste makers. It’s just a shift of control. Will social create the same experience as a channel - shows that are discovered because they have a buzz around them.

Alexander explained that Now TV has a linear, box sets and catch up “as a mini-Sky”. The key difference, he said is that “in our UI we favour on-demand where we don’t need advertising which customers like and we bury the live. You turn on the EPG and customers will have to search for live but 25 per cent of our viewing is still live.”

Few thought Netflix was killing pay TV. “Netflix is complementary with Now TV,” said Alexander. “Half of our customers are also consuming Netflix. Netflix is just another channel in a different guise. It is payTV.”

Asked for their thoughts on what has changed in terms of audience behaviour over the last few years Birgfeld said he thought the industry had come from a place of control but the audience has shown us that they don’t want to be in control. “Everything is a click or swipe away. From a designer’s point of view what is most challenging is this incredible fragmentation of experience.”

Ericsson highlighted the growth of mobile viewing at 71% a year since 2012 and that companies like Facebook are seeing a rise in mobile advertising of 84% a year. “We’re now seeing applications where the mobile phone gets blended with the TV,” said Castle. “People are using mobile to find the content they want and casting gives them the ability to watch on the screen of their choice. Binge watching has changed consumer behaviour especially on SVOD. We report that 83% of people binge watch on their SVOD package a week.”

The BBC’s Bunker has been in media research for 30 years back when there were just four channels. He suggested that in the last five years VOD moving to the TV set was a big deal. “We’re finding not just young people binging but older people realising you can do this now. The bigger thing is people’s expectations around content - the mindset of people has changed. to one of expectation of TV everywhere anywhere.”

GfK’s Waesche said change itself was a bit of a myth. “Time spent with TV has not decreased, in fact in many countries it has risen. In developing countries there’s a boom in TV watching driven by new infrastructure. 80 per cent of activity on a normal set activity in west european markets is still on TV but 20% is on OTT catch up and other services. You can see that within the TV box thing are happening but European TV broadcasters are as profitable as ever and revenues are rising - so what’s all the fuss about?”

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well he did tell you his thoughts about linear TV until he was blue in the face OB but alas its taken a while for you to realise that linear TV will be here a long time after we have all gone the way of the dodo.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

As I said,Den, that is entirely down to viewer behaviour over the coming years when on demand viewing will become second nature to a growing proportion of the population.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Interesting to see from this article that the latest figures show live viewing in the US declining less slowly overall during the second quarter, although there is a clear difference in the viewing habits of younger people.

http://advanced-television.com/2016/...osses-slowing/


Nielsen: Live viewing losses slowing


The amount of time spent watching live TV dropped in the second quarter but the erosion is slowing, says Nielsen. According to its Q2 Total Audience Report, consumption habits in the US continue to change but live viewing remains dominant and changes appear to be moderating except when it comes to mobile viewing, which is still expanding.

“People spent 4 hours and 9 minutes per day on live TV, down 2 minutes from 4:11 in the second quarter of 2015,” Nielsen said. Live viewing dropped 8 minutes per day from 2014 to 2015.


The number of homes with subscription video on demand continued to rise, hitting 53 per cent in the second quarter, up from 45 per cent a year ago. Time shifted viewing on DVRs was up one minute to 39 minutes per day. Internet use was up on PCs, to 57 minutes from 43 seconds, and the most noticeable increase came in the amount of time using apps.

In homes with SVoD subs, fewer channels are viewed. Among all adults, the number of channels viewed per month in SVoD homes was 18.6, compared to 19.8. Fewer channels were viewed by younger viewers, and even fewer of those viewers had access to SVoD. For example, viewers in the 18-to-34 year-old millennial group watched 14.9 channels on average. With SVoD in the home, the number of channels dropped to 14.3.

Netherlands: HBO Go goes
 

Interesting to see that HBO Go and its sister linear channels are closing in the Netherlands. All the content is becoming cable exclusive and moving across to Ziggo.
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...ts-programmes/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sport on demand may be closer than we thought.

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/60964...x-into-sports/

Disney deal ‘could propel Netflix into sports’

Selling up to The Walt Disney Company could give subscription on-demand service Netflix a route into the lucrative sports content game, according to a research house.

Disney has plans to monetise its ESPN cable channel as an SVOD service, and buying Netflix could supersize its ambitions, Simon Murray, principal analyst at Digital TV Research told DTVE‘s sister title, TBI.

“Streaming live sports is going to be huge in the next few years,” he said. “Netflix has said in the past that it isn’t interested in sports, but, of course, Disney owns ESPN. Imagine a Netflix platform that carried live sports – that would be pretty impressive.”

Netflix’s share price shot up yesterday upon rumours Disney was giving serious thought to an acquisition of the market-leading SVOD service, which operates in 188 territories.

Another analyst, Ampere Analysis research director Richard Broughton, said an acquisition would “substantially” improve Disney’s bargaining position in film and TV content negotiations thanks to Netflix’s global reach.

Digital TV Research’s Murray said that HBO’s success launching SVOD service HBO Now without compromising its carriage deals was a positive sign. “HBO offering an OTT platform in the US has already shown that the risk of cannibalisation is quite small,” he added. “Maybe Disney’s deals with pay TV operators – especially in the US – wouldn’t be harmed that much.”

For Netflix, the upside would come from scale, Ampere’s Broughton added. “Netflix would gain access to Disney production assets, which could help shave costs – particularly for originals,” he said. “That’s important for a low margin business like Netflix.”

Furthermore, a merged business would “acts as a hedge against further broadcast TV declines”, said Broughton. “Disney’s single largest business line is media networks, which is facing intense pressure from cord-cutting partly caused by Netflix,” he added. “If the trend does continue, owning the prime culprit is a safe strategy.”

However, analysts have warned there were a number of potential obstacles. These include rights issues and pay TV movie exclusivity, as many Disney films are part of long-term rights agreements, and the debt load Netflix would place on the Mouse House.

“I am not at all convinced Netflix would be a good fit for Disney,” said Tony Gunnarsson, senior analyst of TV practice at Informa-owned research house Ovum.

“Disney has always strictly stayed clear of anything that might be seen as shocking, controversial and/or overly adult – for fears of upsetting American cultural sensibilities.

“On the basis of Netflix’s original programming alone, which from Orange is the New Black to Chelsea and beyond is intentionally all those things, I don’t think there is any realistic chance of this ever happening.”

“Despite its focus on originals, Netflix is still reliant on acquired content,” said Broughton. “The reaction from other content owners in terms of willingness to sell to a rival’s platform could mean a Disney-owned Netflix faces steeper content acquisition costs and potentially new rivals set up by other content owners.”

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Although intended for audiences outside the UK, this, I believe, is the kind of site that will ultimately become popular in the UK and start to take audiences away from our conventional broadcast terrestrial channels.

Competition regulators should become more relaxed about the idea with time and increased competition from other providers.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/201...aming-service/

Streaming service brings UK shows to a US audience

Some shows will stream just 24 hours after airing in the UK, vows BritBox; pricing TBC.

The commercial arm of the BBC is teaming up with rival UK broadcaster ITV to launch BritBox, a subscription streaming service that will give US anglophiles access to hundreds of British TV shows.

US-based AMC Networks, maker of hit shows like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, will own a minority stake in BritBox, but will not have any voting rights.

Pricing for BritBox is yet to be announced but, we're told, it will launch in the first quarter of 2017 on iOS, Android, Roku, AppleTV, and Chromecast, as well as via Web browsers. Other streaming services like Netflix and Hulu typically cost around the $10 mark. BBC Worldwide added that while the service will be US-only initially, it has an "ambition" to roll it out to other international markets in the future.

BritBox will be split into two sections: "Now" will show soaps and some series just 24 hours after airing in the UK, while "Classics" will feature catalogue content from both the BBC and ITV stretching back decades. On the Now side, British soaps like EastEnders, Emmerdale, and Holby City will be shown alongside dramas such as Silent Witness, New Blood, and Cold Feet.

Classics include the likes of period dramas like Brideshead Revisited, Pride and Prejudice, and Upstairs Downstairs, while comedy fans can enjoy the class-based capers of Keeping Up Appearances and the mild xenophobia of Fawlty Towers. Further details on shows are promised closer to launch, and those interested can sign up for updates over at britbox.com.

While of no consequence to US folks, that the BBC is partnering with ITV to launch a streaming service is something of a surprise, particularly as the two broadcasters regularly compete for viewers in the prime-time Saturday night slot with shows like Strictly Come Dancing and The X-Factor. Also surprising (and disappointing) is that Channel 4 is not currently part of BritBox.

C4 has numerous comedy classics on its books, including Father Ted, Peep Show, and Smack the Pony, as well as award-winning investigative news programmes such as Dispatches. Channel 5 isn't part of the deal either, but given that its output mostly consists of Celebrity Big Brother and Tattoo Disasters, it won't be missed.

The launch of BritBox follows the shuttering of the global version of iPlayer in May last year. The app allowed users in Western Europe, Australia, and Canada to view BBC programmes, including hit shows like Doctor Who and Sherlock. European users were charged a €5.99 (£4.30) monthly fee, Canadians $6.99 (£3.70), and Australians $7.49 (£3.80).

It also follows the failed launch of "Project Kangaroo" in 2007, a joint venture between ITV, BBC Worldwide, and Channel 4 that was intended to simplify the streaming video market in the UK. The project was scrapped after competition regulators blocked its development, because it was too much of a threat to competition in the then nascent video-on-demand market.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2016/12/5.jpg

:D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It never dies, Chris...:dozey::D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And nor will Linear TV OB as you will find out if you decide to visit many households this Christmas or the Christmases of the future as the vast majority will be huddled together in the living room watching the popular Linear channels.:Yes::xmas::Yes:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You are quite right to say the linear channels are currently popular, Den,.

As for the future, that is quite a different matter. The thing is, people are used to having broadcast linear TV and as you know, old habits die hard. However, the younger generation are very quick to latch on to new things and this way of operating then becomes habitual for them. Gradually at first, and then very rapidly, the new way of doing things will really catch on, and as these new services develop, accessing programmes in this way will become the method of choice by most.

As I have said before, there will come a point at which it makes economic sense to close these channels in favour of a streaming approach. You're ok for the time being though, Den!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm so glad that I'm not part of the vast majority! :D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Hear, hear......

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You don't have to be as there is a free choice out which suits everybody's different taste and wallet.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You've only got to look at the main 5 channels Xmas day schedules. Total crap, lowest denominator.:D

I suspect we'll be binge watching Season 6 of GoT.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This ^^ the so called main channels are shocking imo on Xmas day.