Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997471)

You can't compare this with the energy companies, because there is no choice other than go with one of them.

Nobody forces you to subscribe to any TV service, do they?

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35997447)

Netflix is separate story. They had to build their content library up from nothing and to quote Reed Hastings, "they have to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." They've done it.

I would expect that the bulk of all the streamer's profits will be through DTC services, rather than going through a third party.


Just like the supermarkets, I don't expect anymore than half a dozen large players in this field and the compettion will be fierce. Whether they reach a equilibrium and prices stabilise, remains to be seen.

I never said that Comcast wouldn't be one of them, clearly they are, but more consolidation is coming and I'm certainly not clear what name plate will be on the front doors of the HQs of the Big 5 (or however many cos it will be) in the next five years, but probably Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Netflix.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35997464)

Numbers play a big part in this and will determine things and who the winners will be and who the losers will be. If, as I expect, Netflix get at least half a billion subscribers, spending $20bn on content each year becomes sustainable. Will Disney or the Apple owned Disney (as I expect it to be) will they catch up with Netflix? Will there be a third truly global player, a fourth and fifth? We'll probably know within the next five years.

As for linear tv, I've said before, what linear tv channels that remain in the future, I expect they will act like shop windows into the streaming services. Perhaps the big streamers will take ads, perhaps not, but the free services will be what linear channels survive and I expect most of the pay tv channels to wither away. Well, that's what Murdoch thought and as he sold the bulk of his empire on that belief, I go with that.

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------

And just coming back to the comparison with the energy companies, the big tech/media/telco companies may not get everything their own way.

I've spoken about for years about what I originally called the portals, which in today's terms would probably be called social media.

As well as the big media/tech companies, there could literally hundreds/thousands of sites producing quality content and people come together from around the world on their favourite subjects and chip in to fund it, what we would now call crowdfunding. These sites may not attract the big name actors or directors, but that does not mean they would all be rubbish or not find their own niche. Look at youtube. There's rubbish on there, but also quality stuff.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997480)

I can compare them to the big six energy companies - I’m the one grounding my analysis in economics here, thank you very much. Having the choice of buying a service or not doesn’t mean competitive pricing.

Could almost anyone reasonably have the means to set up a rival streaming service? No. Barriers to entry are high. Pricing trends to oligopoly.

Could almost anyone set up an independent retail outlet to sell goods similar to those in a supermarket? Yes. As demonstrated my hundreds of thousands of small independent grocery stores, bakeries, fishmongers, off licences and others up and down the country. Barriers to entry are relatively low by comparison. Pricing trends to perfect competition.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997496)

But we are not talking about the energy companies, are we? We are talking about media content.

You can compare that to the media industry if you like, but as discussed on here, you can also compare it with supermarkets. In the first example, prices are higher than we would like and cause governments concern. In the second example, competition between the supermarkets is intense and ensures low prices.

So yes, jfman, it's your choice which industry you compare with, but it's pretty pointless.really.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997497)

On the contrary, Old Boy, you can only compare it with anything you like with a flawed understanding of economics.

You are the one that has described restrictions on distribution methods, vertical integration and all the classic characteristics of monopoly and oligopoly. You have even described it as a market that multi-billion dollar companies will be unable to compete in. That’s not the conditions of perfect competition driving down prices for end users.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997517)

I have no recollection of ever stating that this will be a market that multi-billion dollar companies will be unable to use! That’s a conclusion you have drawn yourself.

What I see happening is more streaming services set up with a vast amount of content. Some will be subscription services, others funded by advertising and it would not surprise me if some offered both alternatives.

Some of them will be big, like Warner and Disney; others will be smaller, like StarzPlay. Whether the smaller ones will join together or not in time to compete with the giants, we shall see, but if they are cheaper, they could probably stand alone and not be absorbed by the larger providers in the short term.

You keep going on about economic viability, and I believe that in your head, Netflix and Amazon should not even be here! You disregard in your calculations the fact that Amazon is prepared to see their Prime streaming service as a loss leader to promote their retail business and that Netflix will continue expanding for some time yet. Obviously, there will come a point where they won’t have to spend such huge sums on their content and at that point they might be prepared to allow other outlets the ability to watch their content. This is already happening, by the way - Designated Survivor is now showing on pay tv channels. So that is further income for the streaming companies.

As far as the amount of new material being shown on the scheduled channels is concerned, we can already see how this is drying up. Unless they rely more on their own original material, they will be resorting to content already shown for a few years on the streamers and the films will be older too if the studios redirect their output. So Sky Cinema channels would suffer.

So the scheduled channels will suffer from reducing advertising revenues caused by poorer and/or older quality programming and existing viewer trends towards VOD.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997521)

More conjecture with no evidence whatsoever.

It really is becoming tiresome. I can even see you resorted to throwing up a straw man in there by speculating on whether I think Netflix or Amazon should exist at all! You also make curious use of the word “obviously” and place an easily disputable point after it.

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 35997526)

1. Even OB admits his wife cannot cope with getting onto streaming services (different boxes; changing inputs etc) and I am sure there are millions more who just want to turn on the TV, press a couple of buttons and watch. If all the linear channels go and the ability to simply record and play back on boxes like the V6, how will all those people cope?
2. I accept we must constantly have new programmes produced but the idea that most people only watch newly produced content is ridiculous. Surely a great many channels ONLY show previously viewed content and several are very popular. Dare I say that much of the content on Netflix has been previously shown on linear channels. Having enjoyed series 5 of Line of Duty on BBC, I then watched series 1 to 4 on Netflix, though why BBC programmes are on Netflix and not iPlayer is a mystery to me.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35997527)

Really? I for one never watch repeats.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35997528)

You don't know what you are missing.;)

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 35997530)

Not everyone is able for various reasons to watch things first time round. Some things are certainly like to enjoy a second time. Why is there a market for DVD boxsets?

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 35997530)

Not everyone is able for various reasons to watch things first time round. Some things are certainly like to enjoy a second time. Why is there a market for DVD boxsets?

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35997531)

No idea, does zilch for me, a waste of money imo,,

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35997532)

Plenty in our household.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------



Tell that to the Star Trek , Star Wars , LOTR'S , Harry Potter , Marvel , Game of Thrones , HBO , BBC , etc . etc , etc fans....

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997534)

In fairness it's his personal opinion ;) he's not applying it to everyone else. I own about three DVD box sets.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35997535)

Den, I couldn't give two ****s about what others want to do with their hard earned cash, but, as i said already, it's just not for me, I see no point in watching something that I have already watched.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997538)

It's really money for old rope. Digitally remastered VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, 4K versions and every time there's a technology change you can milk the same cash cows dry.

There's no magic money tree, but that's pretty close. :)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997521)

More conjecture with no evidence whatsoever.

It really is becoming tiresome. I can even see you resorted to throwing up a straw man in there by speculating on whether I think Netflix or Amazon should exist at all! You also make curious use of the word “obviously” and place an easily disputable point after it.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35997518)

Do you ever research anything before posting ?

Designated Survivor was a show originally shown on ABC (linear TV) Seasons 1&2 , Netflix with Entertainment One took over from Season 3 and also has access to the first two seasons.

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 35997526)

1. Even OB admits his wife cannot cope with getting onto streaming services (different boxes; changing inputs etc) and I am sure there are millions more who just want to turn on the TV, press a couple of buttons and watch. If all the linear channels go and the ability to simply record and play back on boxes like the V6, how will all those people cope?
2. I accept we must constantly have new programmes produced but the idea that most people only watch newly produced content is ridiculous. Surely a great many channels ONLY show previously viewed content and several are very popular. Dare I say that much of the content on Netflix has been previously shown on linear channels. Having enjoyed series 5 of Line of Duty on BBC, I then watched series 1 to 4 on Netflix, though why BBC programmes are on Netflix and not iPlayer is a mystery to me.

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 35997530)

Not everyone is able for various reasons to watch things first time round. Some things are certainly like to enjoy a second time. Why is there a market for DVD boxsets?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35997522)

This is O.B.’s M.O. ... surely you noticed before now? :D

You can add to that the other main strand of the arguments presented in this thread and other similar ones, basically “it’s what I like so obviously it’s what everyone else should like”. OB is always right. Experience is everything, remember. ;)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997521)

More conjecture with no evidence whatsoever.

It really is becoming tiresome. I can even see you resorted to throwing up a straw man in there by speculating on whether I think Netflix or Amazon should exist at all! You also make curious use of the word “obviously” and place an easily disputable point after it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997552)

In fairness it’s not my economic theory, hundreds of years of capitalism has developed to support it. However, you haven’t proven it to be wrong. Grateful if you could clarify where exactly you did this?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997553)

I think the very existence of Netflix and Amazon proves you wrong! But please don't ask me to explain that. As you say, this is becoming really tiresome! :p:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997554)

Where did I say the pay-tv market has economic conditions that precludes the existence of Netflix/Amazon or anyone else?

You are making a fool of yourself now, Old Boy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997556)

Not at all! Your distopian view of the future of Netflix says it all.

Netflix will survive for decades to come, despite your nefarious grasp of economics. So will Prime.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997567)

Nefarious grasp of economics? Evidence that statement please.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997590)

Netflix exists.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997594)

At no point did I claim it could not exist. Please provide evidence.

More straw men.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35997424)

Perhaps someone needs to ask the BBC Director General Tony Hall why he's signed off on a deal to purchase UKTV or ask Comcast why they've bought Sky. Perhaps they should have spoke to you first OB.

Oh OB your comments gets funnier by the day.:D

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35997601)

OB Please quote where I have said nothing will change ?

Of course things will move over IP in fact Sky already delivers a great deal over IP as well as satellite.

Where we differ is I believe linear will still be around for many years sure the amount of channels will dwindle but broadcasters will still have a presence but maybe with a couple of channels as opposed to six or seven.

The BBC have bought UKTV to close down the UKTV linear channels oh dear where do you think this stuff up.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997600)

Please provide clear economic analysis instead of conjecture. It would save me time separating the two.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997602)

I am sure you are quite capable of googling, and making comparisons with the rather extreme comments you have been making in your posts, jfman!

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35997601)

OB Please quote where I have said nothing will change ?

Of course things will move over IP in fact Sky already delivers a great deal over IP as well as satellite.

Where we differ is I believe linear will still be around for many years sure the amount of channels will dwindle but broadcasters will still have a presence but maybe with a couple of channels as opposed to six or seven.

The BBC have bought UKTV to close down the UKTV linear channels oh dear where do you think this stuff up.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997606)

Well this is my problem with your claims, Old Boy. I have clearly asked you to frame your statements and ground them in economics yet you resort to asking me to google? You do it. I’m asking you to evidence statements that I know you cannot.

I am very well capable of googling. I’ve spent some years (and some money!) studying economics so you are doing a disservice to my education by claiming I could have just spent three years reading opinion pieces.

Prove me wrong! Please. Avoid saying “I think” and “obviously” in your replies. That’s low hanging fruit for my reply.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997669)

I have an economics qualification too, jfman, but I'm not writing a thesis for you. I have already explained my reasoning in my previous posts. I accept that you disagree with me. But I believe you are wrong!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997669)

I have an economics qualification too, jfman, but I'm not writing a thesis for you. I have already explained my reasoning in my previous posts. I accept that you disagree with me. But I believe you are wrong!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35997671)

You always believe everybody else is wrong but your track record over the years does not exactly get the bookies running for cover with your way out predictions.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35997670)

Can I ask what your economics qualification is, please?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997669)

I have an economics qualification too, jfman, but I'm not writing a thesis for you.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997703)

Mine's only an 'A' level,

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35997757)

Which is just as well, because



which means you’re about 5 years of university study short of being qualified to write a thesis on anything ...

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35998543)

I’m pretty sure the Amazon Fire TV stick does all of this already. There’s catch-up apps for the PSB channels, a Netflix app and the ability to subscribe to a few other streaming services as well. Searching for content returns results from whichever services you have subscribed to

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 35998614)

I said the main extras are included - but stuff like Eleven Sport do not appear even though their app is on there.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36000524)

Aggregation will work if the streamers allow themselves to be aggregated, but when companies like Comcast and AT&T are both platform and aggregator aka streamer, will these sort of companies allow each others services to be on their networks in the future?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000533)

Aggregation is what we have now. Which is it I’m confused, will platforms continue to dominate or independent streamers? If it’s aggregators, why won’t Liberty and Comcast be best placed to do this?

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000606)

I wouldn't be shocked to see Prime added to Sky at some point Comcast already has it on its X1 platform and has just signed a deal to add Amazon Music to it as well.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000611)

Now that BT and VM have taken the plunge, I'm sure Sky will too.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000613)

The decision is a lot easier for both of those.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000618)

Sorry, but I don't understand why. Sky did appear reluctant to embrace OTT services at first, but they followed when VM got Netflix.

Liberty Global themselves had concerns about Prime, but when BT added it to their platform, LG changed their minds, and I'm sure Sky will do, too.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000621)

Simple because Sky has far more competing services such as Sky Store , Sky Cinema and the Sky Entertainment channels , both VM and BT buy the bulk of their content in so not as big of an issue.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000622)

That is the way l generally see it too as why would Sky want a service that competes with their own services.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000623)

I think it will arrive Den but the deal has to make perfect business sense to Sky

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000622)

That is the way l generally see it too as why would Sky want a service that competes with their own services.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000631)

Well if you search for a programme that is on Virgin Media Store, you will sometimes find that it is also on Netflix.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36000643)

:banghead:

;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000645)

Is your point that VM Store is not owned by VM?

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36000646)

Correct

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000533)

Aggregation is what we have now. Which is it I’m confused, will platforms continue to dominate or independent streamers? If it’s aggregators, why won’t Liberty and Comcast be best placed to do this?

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36002875)

Interesting article from CNBC about the the carriage renewal negotiations currently going on between Disney and Charter (John Malone's American cableco) and it could determine the future of not just American linear tv, but ours as well (in my opinion):

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/12/disn...aming-era.html

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36002875)

Interesting article from CNBC about the the carriage renewal negotiations currently going on between Disney and Charter (John Malone's American cableco) and it could determine the future of not just American linear tv, but ours as well (in my opinion):

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/12/disn...aming-era.html

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36002917)

It is a very confused picture, because by rights, TV subscribers should be migrating faster towards VOD, and yet, as some of the posts here show, some are still happy to be bullied into watching their favourite programmes at times dictated to them by the schedulers and to suffer having to watch intolerable waves of insufferable advertisements when they could be watching much better quality material at times of their choosing.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36002917)

Thank you, Horizon. For me, a significant paragraph was this one:

As MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a note to clients this week, cable providers are coming around to the idea that it’s OK to lose TV subscribers as long as they keep paying for internet access.

This could be right, of course, but having just acquired the 'ultimate oomph' package, which gave me my existing channels + Sky Movies + Sky Sports + 500 Mb speed broadband (instead of 'only' 200 Mb) and a new 'unlimited' SIM for only £1 more than I was paying before, I do wonder if the cablecos are ready to ditch the pay tv subs so readily just yet.

It is a very confused picture, because by rights, TV subscribers should be migrating faster towards VOD, and yet, as some of the posts here show, some are still happy to be bullied into watching their favourite programmes at times dictated to them by the schedulers and to suffer having to watch intolerable waves of insufferable advertisements when they could be watching much better quality material at times of their choosing.

I still think the younger generation will ultimately change the ways of the older people, but I must admit to being surprised at the number of people who are content just to sit there and be fed whatever is thrown at them. If I ever get like that, I would be grzteful if someone would just put me down! Sorry if that was politically incorrect... :

:D Not really! :p:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36002917)

I still think the younger generation will ultimately change the ways of the older people, but I must admit to being surprised at the number of people who are content just to sit there and be fed whatever is thrown at them. If I ever get like that, I would be grzteful if someone would just put me down! Sorry if that was politically incorrect... :

:D Not really! :p:

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36002918)

I record off the linear channels so it’s simple to zip through ad breaks.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36002921)

Funny that as you have always said "experience is everything";)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a note to clients this week, cable providers are coming around to the idea that it’s OK to lose TV subscribers as long as they keep paying for internet access.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36002918)

I record off the linear channels so it’s simple to zip through ad breaks.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36002944)

"As some of the posts on here show" - sorry Old Boy I think what you mean to say is that the BARB figures show, and report, that millions of people sit down and watch TV as scheduled in addition to catch up, streaming and time shifting.

You have made one quite interesting point here, I supposed like the broken clock everyone has their moments.



Let's think, why would operators of hybrid-fibre coax networks want people to use more data. Price rises!

Once the speeds that households need push through 24Mb ADSL2+ and 80Mb FTTC limits cable operators are ideally positioned to price their broadband products against FTTP offerings which will cost (on average) thousands per home just to put the infrastructure in place. Indeed, Openreach have a wholesale price of £80 per month for 1Gbps. Virgin's 350Mb standalone has a standard price of £55, so expect 500Mb and 1Gbps to be similar and higher respectively once launched.

Cable operators around the world are positioned to deploy technologies to millions of homes that can reach these speeds at a fraction of the cost on their existing networks and hike their prices to match the rest of the market.

FTTP is unlikely to be regulated in the same way as copper lines and the amount of genuine competition available to each consumer will likely be virtually non-existent for years to come (this brings me back to oligopoly but I know people get bored of economics).



Now let's break down your package - I'm guessing you got the offer price of £99? The Rt. Hon. Phillip Hammond MP is straight onto a wedge there. :)

So you've got a SIM, and not owning their own network there's a chunk of money to our good friends at BT already. The unlimited SIM retails at £27, but who knows what goes to BT. Will we call it a tenner? Higher? Lower?

Sky Sports and Sky Movies will obviously be contentiously priced. It's not in the public domain, but when relations were slightly worse between Sky and the cable operators they actually insisted they had to sell these channels at a loss on cable! Now if you don't have the top bundle (or a predecessor) Virgin charge an astonishing £58.75 for Sports and Movies HD. Wow. That's a lot. The undiscounted price on Sky is £49, but it goes on offer at £34. There's really no way of knowing what chunk of your subscription goes on this - but it'll be sizeable. More than a score? Higher? Lower?

Sky's basic channels, of the famous dispute fame, and all the other third parties on the platform are onto a chunk. £3 a month? £5? Pennies per channel, of course, but with hundreds of channels pennies add up!

We're back to our good friends BT once again as BT Sport has a reasonably lucrative, but undisclosed, deal for all it's channels to be included in TV XL or whatever they call it these days. Way back in the dim and distant past Setanta reportedly got a similar deal at £2.50 a month, and they weren't fronting up the thick end of £2bn every three years for football. BT, on it's own platform, charges over £15 a month. I think it's fair to say Virgin's wholesale deal is probably at least double Setanta's given the financial commitment BT is making in sports rights.

So, would Virgin prefer to sell you broadband at £55 a month you need but can't get anywhere else, or a discounted ultimate oomph package at £99 and hand out all this money to third parties and to a great extent rely upon them to sell their overall package?

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36004567)

What reduced content from the US ?

The broadcasters are still currently selling all their shows to the channels/services bidding the most.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36004568)

Old Boy doesn't do facts, he just offers opinion that drops into his head as reality if he can get a couple of similar Google hits.

He's also not interested in why the largest operators of hybrid fibre coax networks in the world might be indifferent to the rise of streaming he's only interested in what he pays.

I suppose seeing things as "macro" level hasn't been his thing throughout.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36004593)

Eye on the ball, muppetman. :walk:

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------



Rude. Wrong. :sniper:

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36004617)

My eyes are always on the ball , US content is still being made available to UK channels so not sure what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36004691)

Like the sunrise inevitably a regular occurrence is Old Boy trotting out more opinion pieces of the exact same discredited opinions. C'est la vie.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36004696)

And yet I have a hard drive full of US Shows Old Boy go figure.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36004702)

So have I muppetman but not from any cable or satallite company. Go figure!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36004684)

While a certain amount of content is likely to be available, a great deal will by-pass the pay tv companies and go straight to the streamers. You can already see how this is beginning to impact Netflix, as it is forced to give up its Disney content, for example. Sky is likely to lose at least some of the contracts it has with the film studios, and as existing contracts expire, there will be no content left to replace the shows that have to be given up.

The stepping up of Sky's commissioning of double its original content would not have come about if it could still rely on good US shows being available for screening on their platform. It is also why the likes of Virgin Media,, Sky and BT will all be aiming at being super-aggregators of content in the future.

The attached article supports my view, but of course there are others as well if you look for them.

https://www.capitalgroup.com/pcs/lat...ng-shifts.html

Content providers are beginning to offer services directly to consumers.

The most dramatic development has come from content providers. In moves that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, they are starting to bypass cable and satellite companies in favor of selling directly to consumers over the Internet. HBO, for example, garnered significant attention with its rollout of a stand-alone streaming service. Showtime, another premium channel, plans a similar initiative. CBS has begun offering a streaming service made up of current and past programs. These types of offerings can lure customers who don’t subscribe to cable. More importantly, the new services establish a foothold in the digital marketplace that can be leveraged as on-demand grows in popularity.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36004714)

The CBS/Viacom remerger is expected to be announced next week, so we should get a combined streamer from them at some point over the next year or so.

On Disney's removal of content, was that ever confirmed for the UK Netflix service? I can't seem to find any announcement about that. Even in the States, due to existing contracts, some Disney material will remain on Netflix US into 2021.

Although I largely agree with OB's views, I do think we need to add the caveat that we don't know whether the Hollywood media cos will withhold content from Sky/Virgin/Netflix UK etc yet. I think the signs are obvious, but we need to wait and see what actually happens.

We know what's going to happen in the States, or at least some idea, as there have been several announcements, but as contracts with global broadcasters don't expire until the mid 2020s in some cases, we may not feel the pain, yet, that will be felt in the States.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36004714)

The CBS/Viacom remerger is expected to be announced next week, so we should get a combined streamer from them at some point over the next year or so.

On Disney's removal of content, was that ever confirmed for the UK Netflix service? I can't seem to find any announcement about that. Even in the States, due to existing contracts, some Disney material will remain on Netflix US into 2021.

Although I largely agree with OB's views, I do think we need to add the caveat that we don't know whether the Hollywood media cos will withhold content from Sky/Virgin/Netflix UK etc yet. I think the signs are obvious, but we need to wait and see what actually happens.

We know what's going to happen in the States, or at least some idea, as there have been several announcements, but as contracts with global broadcasters don't expire until the mid 2020s in some cases, we may not feel the pain, yet, that will be felt in the States.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36004691)

Like the sunrise inevitably a regular occurrence is Old Boy trotting out more opinion pieces of the exact same discredited opinions. C'est la vie.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36004724)

You are asking the wrong man for details. He's been quite open that details, and economics, aren't his bag.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36004740)

You come up with economics, jfman, but that's hardly supplying any real hard evidence that your economics arguments will win the day, none of us on this forum/thread know what these companies have planned/are planning do we? Yes, we all read the various articles that we see online, you, like everyone else is relying on what we hear/read etc from items on TV or the web, OB is supplying articles that he has found on varoius websites which seem to support his views as to where we are heading as far as streaming and linear tv is concerned, and how we watch it, but you continually dismiss this, so can I ask you to supply us with evidence to the contrary that the various articles supplied by OB will not happen?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36004880)

It’s easy to find opinion pieces, blogs, etc that aren’t credible sources.

I continue to dismiss the idea that the number of television channels reduces to zero, quickly, because it’s a ridiculous assertion. It’s down there with a human being achieving flight by flapping his or her arms.

Old Boy himself, on the V6 thread, broadly accepts broadband infrastructure off the Virgin network to be inadequate to support an entirely streaming situation.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36004881)

[/B]

I agree that the broadband infrastructure in the UK is inadequate but I don't see that as supporting your argument. The whole country should have fast broadband speeds in a few years. As I've said previously, the BBC is planning for a non-linear scheduled TV environment after the next licence fee review.

But I expect you know better than them. They really should have consulted you in the first place. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36004881)

[/B]

I agree that the broadband infrastructure in the UK is inadequate but I don't see that as supporting your argument. The whole country should have fast broadband speeds in a few years. As I've said previously, the BBC is planning for a non-linear scheduled TV environment after the next licence fee review.

But I expect you know better than them. They really should have consulted you in the first place. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36004885)

Should means absolutely diddly squat as the proof is in the pudding and thus so far that pudding is still gathering dust on the shelves.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36004881)

[/B]

I agree that the broadband infrastructure in the UK is inadequate but I don't see that as supporting your argument. The whole country should have fast broadband speeds in a few years. As I've said previously, the BBC is planning for a non-linear scheduled TV environment after the next licence fee review.

But I expect you know better than them. They really should have consulted you in the first place. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36004885)

Should means absolutely diddly squat as the proof is in the pudding and thus so far that pudding is still gathering dust on the shelves.