Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Me too :D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's hard to criticise BBC 1's peak-time schedule, it's got some very popular shows on:
Frozen 3:10
Great British Bake Off 4:45
Dr Who 5:45
Strictly Come Dancing 6:45
Call the Midwife 8pm
They may not all be to my taste but I acknowledge that this will be a highly popular Christmas line-up.

Meanwhile, yet another me-too streaming service is making headlines, Chilli. Based in Italy and serving Poland, Austria, Germany and Italy, it has secured investment from Sony, adding to that already received from Warner, Viacom and Tony Miranz, Vudu's co-founder.
https://uk.chili.tv/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You're either on the bevvy, or you're takin the mick mate, you couldn't pay me to watch any of that guff!!!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The only thing I'm on at the moment is Lemsip! Everyone's different hence so many options. But BBC1 has a popular line-up which will do very well.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well you don't have to watch it old boy but many millions will.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Frozen 3:10
Great British Bake Off 4:45
Dr Who 5:45
Strictly Come Dancing 6:45
Call the Midwife 8pm

Do you really believe that this lot is good xmas viewing?? I'd go along with Frozen, particularly for the kids, but " Call the Midwife"!!!! Deary me....:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------


Linear TV is dying Den, you should know that by now.......:D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

None of those are my cuppa tea either. Each to there own though.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Its only dying in the eyes of the streaming diehards and aficionados but the reality is very much different from that MM but l think you and others know that deep down.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I don't think that you are correct there Den, some of the evidence that OB has obtained definitely shows that people's viewing habits are changing, and changing pretty fast, can't keep denying what's happening Den!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And what about the evidence that streaming is reaching saturation?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Interesting comments from the FT in connection with Sky.
Article name: Five questions for Sky in the face of Fox’s offer
“The real question for Sky is what happens over the medium to long term as people move away from satellite and patterns of consumption change as young people of today become the bill payers of tomorrow,” said Mathew Horsman, an analyst at Mediatique. “No one knows the answer to that, not even James Murdoch.”
Google article name or direct pay link https://www.ft.com/content/bc21a49a-...3-7e34c07b46ef

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I've not seen that tbh, but do you seriously believe that people nowadays rush home to watch, whatever, at the time its being aired? I don't, and I know lots of people who don't either, gone are the days when you had to be sat in your chair, at a certain time, to watch your favourite soap or whatever. The times they are a changing SP!....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

In the 80s/90s I'd bootleg gigs, trade music tapes & VHS movies. In the 90s/00s I downloaded music and tv/films. Now I can stream what I want when I want it, on Spotify, Amazon, Netflix and Virgin/Sky catchup (when it works!). I rarely watch linear TV but then I never really did, it's just easier (legal) to do it now.

There's still a place for linear TV, live sports, news etc, but I find myself time shifting programmes more often than not.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I've been saying it for a long while , gradually Sky will move over to the Now TV model for delivering its content.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Agreed. I can see a future rump of 5-10 linear channels mostly sport, news and current affairs probably supported by advertising or subscription with the rest of content streamed on-demand and probably PAYG. It's what youngsters do now and they're the future adults that will pay for content.

Most of the stuff we watch on linear TV is available as download, on-demand or Youtube so the demise of these channels is no loss IMHO

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

While anecdotal that's my observation of the world too I can't think of anyone I'm aware of that rushes in to catch a programme. The last people on earth i'd imagine embracing time shifting and streaming would be my parents and my in laws but the former had an Amazon prime video account before me.

Now many in my family will welcome the BBC1 xmas day schedule, they'll just watch it when it suits them...the tv programming is fitted around the day rather than the opposite.

There may be a sort of romance attached to watching a popular tv event as it's broadcast, knowing that millions are doing the same but I think viewing habits are beginning to change in all demographics. Of course I only have anecdotal evidence but I'd be surprised if the many different types of people I see switching to more convenient means of viewing is not in some way representative of a wider trend. I don't see any benefits of broadcasting television on a fixed time frame, the exception being sports I guess but even then I can see that category of viewing being scooped up by streaming as opposed to being broadcast.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think the Murdoch's know exactly the answer to that is and they've already started down that road with NOW TV.

One the big media announcements of the year, in my opinion, was the news that Direct TV were launching cable tv/streaming packages in the States and quote, "that's our future." DirectTv was controlled by Murdoch but is now owned by AT&T.

I said on this very thread, that when NOW TV launched, it was not a defensive move as everyone else said, but an offensive one. It's not to pick up cancelled Sky subs and perhaps those wanting a bit more than Freeview. It is in fact the start of Sky migrating from a satellite based pay tv company, to a cable based tv/telecoms/mobile company.

Whether Murdoch takes the plunge and invests heavily in his own cable infrastructure is another matter. Murdoch Snr has always said he wouldn't. But I don't think, for the reasons you state, that he, Murdoch Jnr, will have a choice.

The young folk of today are consuming media on various devices and when they get older they will STILL want access services on multiple devices. A satellite dish fixed to a house doesn't cut it...

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

Disney came out with a statement earlier in the year regarding its ESPN services and sports in general and it reckoned that younger people are turning away from sports and are more interested in drama "box sets".

Disney stated that if that trend continued, then the vast swathes of money that are poured into sports, especially to football players, will end and the money redistributed to drama.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Good post.
I would have expected Sky to bypass a cable infrastructure and go directly to 5G. However, their lucklustre mobile offering seems to suggest this is unlikely but it would make sense to me.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

John Malone gave a interview to CNBC on this very point and he reckons that fixed line telcos and cable companies will have to join forces with mobile companies because of 5g.

Link here:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/john-...nsolidate.html

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm not sure how 'saturation' has been defined in the evidence to which you have referred.

There are at least three different measures of saturation that I can think of:

1. Virtually all households have access to OTT services.

2. The number of households wanting OTT services and who could afford it already have it.

3. Virtually all households have it and watch mainly OTT services rather than conventional broadcast linear TV.

The last measure is the most important, because if only a small number of households watch linear TV, it would not be worthwhile for the broadcasters to continue broadcasting in that way. After all, if households in 1 and 2 only watch a small amount of on demand services, this will have a minimal impact on conventional broadcasting, whereas if 3 applied, there would no longer be any decent revenue emanating from the advertising that supports it.

As I have said consistently, it's all down to audience habits. Collectively, we are in control.

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------

You may be right about being left with a small number of conventional broadcast channels providing live broadcasts, but as people get more used to OTT services, they will be hunting for live streaming services before they go to broadcast channels, I would have thought. The BBC i-Player already streams programmes at the same time as they are broadcast, so I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to envisage the future looking like this.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 16:35 ----------

This proves that people are quite happy to stream sport as opposed to watching it on 'normal' channels:

http://www.a516digital.com/2016/12/p...year-ever.html

Olympic events from Rio were streamed live more than 30 million times across the summer. During Euro 2016, the England vs Wales football match had more than 2 million requests to watch the match live, becoming BBC iPlayer’s third most popular programme and most-watched live event of the year.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Satellite lends itself well as a TV distribution platform when you need a huge amount of bandwith over a huge area (such as UHD TV feeds).

As more and more use of streaming TV occurs, owners of coaxial and fibre networks have two huge advantages over satellite and those are bandwith-per-unit-area (in both directions) and latency.

It's interesting to see how satellite became the dominant means for distribution of direct to home pay TV signals - and how that will change again as more and more fibre is planted in the ground and viewing becomes more personalized. Mobile bandwith also lends itself better to streaming single TV channels per user when compared with fixed blocks of UHF spectrum over a wide area. Satellite may again revert to being used mainly for feeds while land-based optical networks become the new norm for multichannel TV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, I agree. Sky has appeared reluctant to embrace on demand programming until relatively recently, although I accept that this was largely for technical reasons. There is already evidence that Sky is looking to the future and embracing on demand (the advent of Now TV is one example of this).

It will be interesting to watch how Sky monetises its extended on demand offering, because without the revenue from the copious amount of advertising it puts out on its Sky channels, it is going to have to fill the gap somehow in the longer term when the broadcast channels start to disappear. I don't think unskippable ads or pay per view programming would be an acceptable way forward as it would not appeal to most thinking people who have alternative means of accessing content. I guess on demand packages with subscriptions and maybe more collaboration with other providers for additional content may be the solution.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sky's revenues from subscriptions dwarf what it gets from advertising.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, I believe that to be the case, but the income gap would still have to be covered somehow.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Why are you suggesting there will be an income gap , Sky is already pretty advanced with its Sky Ad smart and Sky Advance services.

Whether you like it or not in one form or another there will still be adverts.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Surely, there is less scope for advertising with the on demand viewing we will be doing in the future? There are no ads on Now TV. Sure, there is still scope for some advertisements, but nowhere near the number that currently appear on Sky's channels.

If they attempt to flood their on demand services with commercials, they will be taking away one of the attractions of subscription based OTT services.

I guess they will be able to get away with a couple of ads before an on demand programme, just as you used to get with DVD rentals, but that's about it. Having said that, they could bring Sky programming to every home if there was also a non subscription based version of on demand services available for those who could not afford, or were not prepared to pay a sub. This would still offer a better alternative than channels controlled by schedules, and would bring more choice to the wider population. Added to which, it does appear that some people actually like watching commercials!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The revolution will not be televised: 2016 was the year TV turned upside down
It’s crunch time for television we’ve always known it: 2016 was the first year the most must-see shows went missing from terrestrial channels. Streaming has changed the game forever.
In 2016 the difference was this: the shows that couldn’t be seen in the old ways were frequently the must-see ones.
Three of the most talked-about series of the year neither occupied a time-slot in the schedules nor required a conventional TV: the royal drama The Crown and the retro-thriller Stranger Things were streamed by Netflix, and The Grand Tour, Jeremy Clarkson’s post-BBC vehicle, on Amazon.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...nels-streaming

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

.... as I've said many times, I love on-demand, streaming etc but I worry about what will happen if you can't stream, or can't afford to pay to stream?

Could it be that in the future, the "poor" may be lumbered with the "mainstream" channels "enjoying" a diet of soap, reality and celebrity chefs while the rich can afford to go online and stream high quality dramas like The Crown?

Not great if you're in the poor camp...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I do understand that, and it is of concern. However, I believe that in the future, most households will have access to good broadband speeds, just as most now have a telephone. I think it is also likely that many, if not all, OTT services will have a non subscription option with commercials for those who cannot or will not pay.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

None of my friends who scrape by on a very low wage can afford either a fixed telephone or broadband, they rely on their payg mobile for communications and internet, it was a struggle for a couple them to be able to afford the TV license

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, and this is certainly a good reason to scrap the TV licence fee in favour of a subscription model. It's a hangover from the past and those on lower incomes should not have to pay simply for the privilege of watching TV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Err with what your suggesting people would have to pay for the privilege of watching TV wouldn't they?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

A subscription model for the BBC would cost more than the current licence fee.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There's more to TV than the BBC.

Don't forget, there are other ways to fund the BBC. There could be a non subscription option with commercials, it could be funded centrally by Government, etc. I really don't understand this obsession with the licence fee, which poorer sectors of the population find really difficult to afford and which is costly and unwieldy to enforce.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And your proposed option would make it even dearer IMO.:rolleyes:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thankfully, John Whittingdale was booted out under the May Government. so hopefully the BBC will be less under threat from the people that Old Boy identifies with.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Read the post I quoted ;)

You know the one that you mentioned a subscription model in ;)

The post I quoted made no other mention to any methods other than subscription hence my comment of people still having to pay for the privilege of watching TV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The licence fee will go, but by a process of attrition. There are positive feedback mechanisms at work. As more people refuse to pay, enforcement is spread thinner and thinner. As people realise they are less likely to be caught and also the knowledge of how to avoid the enforcers becomes more widespread, more and more will refuse to pay. Also more people will use alternative services that are not covered by the TV licence and they will not see the need to pay it.

This may well happen faster than many think possible IMHO.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not for me it wouldn't

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Or me, Den is deluded....:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well l know that anyway MM.;):D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

See, completely deluded :spin:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think that scraping licence fee or an alternate way of public funding is very short sighted, and would lead to an American style TV system. Quality Drama and the broad spectrum of minority interest viewing that the BBC produces would only be available via a pay TV, not to mention the educational output the BBC produces.


Considering the vast services that the BBC produces; TV, Radio, news, web services etc. I think it's a bargain at around £12/month. And I do understand, that for some people, that is difficult to afford. But the alternative would be more expensive.


It's public service broadcasting. And, with all public service provisions, not everyone benefits from a specific service. But for the country as a whole, it's a good and necessary service.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

BBC is PayTV - as you say costs around £12 pm.

The difference is you can choose to subscribe to sky, BT, virgin etc whilst legally there is no choice but to pay license fee or not watch tv at all.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And how much does ITV cost you per month? We don't know because it's added to the price of products to pay for the TV adds.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So I TV pay for TV ads?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Costs me nothing - entirely your choice if you watch ads or not and entirely your choice if you buy things you see in ads.

My point was lack of personal choice re funding of BBC - it ought to stand on it's own 2 feet even if that means having ads the same as ITV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The only way to avoid paying for ITV adds, is to monitor all the adds on ITV and then buy alternative products. Hardly a five minute job. You could always make ITV an add free subscription only service I suppose. That would be really popular!

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------


No, the cost of the adds for the product is added on to the price of the product to claw some of it back.


Unless you steel content via piracy, you pay for content one way or the other; via adds adding to the cost of the advertised product, subscription or licence fee in the case of the BBC.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

My prediction is in the near future the UK will adopt what some other countries are doing regarding a tv license, the cost will get added in taxes.
But imo BBC should be subscription not force a fee upon us, we choose if to buy products or not the comercial channels advertise they don't send sales reps (yes tv license officers are just that sales reps) to try and intimidate us into buying their product, nor do itv,ch4 etc send threatening letters that are designed to cause alarm and distress in the way they are worded, BBC should go subscription or advertise like everyone else does.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes. We gave up subsidising others viewing years ago. Can't remember when a TVL bozo last called.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

One visited me on Christmas eve of all days, i gladly allowed him to check i know i didn't have too but his face dropped quicker than the titanic when he saw not even a ariel was connected and it was clear i only watch on demand (although not legally in some cases lol). He tried to get me to sign a form i declined and sent him on his way without his £20 commision.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The alligators in the pit are getting quite restive. They've not tasted TVL man for quite a while.:D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Just for info for those that don't know, the law did change and you must now have a licence if you watch any BBC content at all, ie live, streamed or on-demand.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It'll probably end up part subscription and part funded by the Government for the public service broadcasting element. In this way, the subscription would not have to rise above the existing licence fee level, despite fewer people paying into it.

Whether or not an advertising option will be part of the solution for those who are just about managing, or do not wish to pay, we will have to see.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yeah i should of mentioned that tbf if you use iplayer you do need a license and your device will now ask if you have a valid tv license.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yep. If you want to watch anything the Brussels Broadcasting Company wants to put on.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Depending on what side of the bed I full out of each day, I agree with you fully.... and disagree fully.:)

The BBC does produce a vast amount for that £12 and that model could not be replicated through private means. But a bit like "buy one, get one free" deals in supermarkets, its only a bargain if you use everything you buy. So if you watch the BBC all the time, listen to their radio, use the website, it is a massive bargain, if you use those services...

I was a massive advocate for the BBC and ITV, CH4 and public service broadcasting in general. Then Rupert Murdoch came along...and it all changed.

The quality of programming on the main channels dropped immensely as viewers turned to the multitude of channels on offer and the likes of ITV could not get the kinds of revenue through advertising that they once commanded.

But of course the BBC is NOT funded through advertising, so regardless of Murdoch, satellite, cable, streaming etc. The BBC's revenue is protected.

The original argument that used to be made for maintaining a public service model was that original British content would still be produced. But did the BBC make Game of Thrones, the world's most popular tv show which uses mostly British actors and staff? No. Did the BBC make THe Crown? No.

I think the public service argument has now turned to dust and so should the licence fee, but I agree we would end up with American style tv. Except, that we already did, it happened about 20+ years ago.

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

Exactly.

The same arguments are still raging about all the "arts" especially here in London. Ballet, opera etc, isn't it all wonderful? Wouldn't life be terrible without it....?

Well, for those that like that stuff, fair enough. But then they should pay for for it, the full cost of it, not be funded by government handouts.

The real biggie coming and its nothing to do with TV, but exactly the same theme is with the NHS. In effect, do the healthy keep subsiding the unhealthy, even when the unhealthy make no effort to change to make themselves healthy?

Just wait for the fireworks to start on that...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Bingo.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Contrary to the belief that has been expressed on these forums, it appears that the vast majority (98%) of OTT viewing is by way of smart TVs - not via mobile devices.

http://www.csimagazine.com/csi/OTT-s...nce-report.php

UK OTT viewing remains an in-home experience - study

A new study looking at how UK consumers are viewing online programmes shows that most often this behaviour is not yet done over mobile devices, with 98% of OTT content viewed at home.

The latest report from GfK clearly shows there is still a large untapped potential to download content onto mobile. It reveals surprisingly low audience numbers on these devices, despite the fact that 90% of the UK’s OTT users have access to a smartphone and/or tablet. (The study only takes into account the three main long-form streaming services and not the likes of YouTube, see below).

Only 4% of OTT subscribers said they used a smartphone to view content and just 10% used a tablet, even though the penetration is greater than internet-enabled games consoles (60%), set-top box (54%) and smart TV (52%).

Moreover, time spent watching on a mobile device is two hours less than time spent on other devices. Smart TVs are the most popular device to watch subscription movies and TV programmes.

Viewers are also almost unanimous in their preference to watch that content at home. Overall, 98% of all content is viewed at home and 86% of all content viewed on a mobile device is also watched at home.

As well as the small screen, one of the challenges with watching OTT content on a smartphone is inadequate data usage allowances. This is why Neflix is offering 'download and watch-on-the go' now, the research firm suggests. Along with Amazon, the SVoD services are yet to transform OTT viewing from an activity done solely at home on a TV to one also done on the move on mobile devices, but this may now start to slowly change.


Time spent watching hh:mm per device
Devices used to view content Netflix Amazon Now TV
Desktop PC 4:11 3:12 3:09
Laptop or netbook 5:00 3:47 3:01
Smart TV (TV with built-in internet capability) 5:21 4:08 4:28
Internet-connected TV (A TV that uses another device to connect to the internet e.g. games console or set-top box) 5:13 4:03 4:49
Smartphone 2:48 2:26 2:06
Tablet 3:53 3:03 2:39
Source: GfK SVOD Content Consumption Tracker April 2015 to October 2016


GfK surveyed 17,982 respondents between April 2015 and October 2016. They completed an initial profiling questionnaire collecting demographics, services subscribed to, general viewing behaviour and device ownership. Data has been weighted to be representative of the UK profile of Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Now TV users by age and gender.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm not sure why that statistic is supposed to be surprising. A poky little phone screen is no substitute for the whopper in the corner of your living room. If it's a toss up between immediate viewing on a screen that's 10" or less, or deferral in order to watch it on something at least three times bigger, on a sofa, without getting a crick in my neck ... well it's a no brainer.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Totally agree. There's nothing quite like watching on a large screen.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

On that we can agree as l tried it once on my phone and that bears no comparison compared to a much bigger screen.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But then they aren't meant to replace a TV I'm sure viewing on phones/tablets is predominantly used for things like commutes , in bed viewing or with children who may not have a tv set in their room.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Instead we get stuff like The Night Manager, Doctor Who, Sherlock, Rillington Place, Happy Valley and nature docs like Planet Earth II. Ok, maybe they don't match the absolute best from the US, like Game of Thrones, but shows like that only come along every couple of years.

Also, if it means that I don't have to sit (or fast forward) through 15 minutes of adverts for every hour of TV programming, I'm quite happy to pay the license fee. I understand that not everyone thinks this way, but for those of us that do, it holds a place next to the NHS as institutions we want to keep as they are.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well Said.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

15 mins of ads per hour! There would be a lot more if we went the US model. Just look at the pauses in programming were we don't see ad's but those across the pond will likely do so. And probably already is, look at length of programme when watching on-demand and think the rest of the hour slot we use would be ads.

I'd like to see advertising limited to 10 mins at most per hour with a minimum period of programme between ad breaks and a max duration of any ad break.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The fact that the US advertise differently makes no difference to US shows shown in the UK as both countries use a 1 hour programme grid. A US '1 hour' show runs for typically 42 minutes. The remaining 18 minutes are filled with adds and show promos, in either the US or UK.
I guess a UK add funded main channel shows run for typically 48 to 50 minutes?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Out of curiosity a few years ago I timed the shows on ITV, generally there were three commercial breaks at about 20 minute intervals and each slot ran 3m20s so the actual show ran 50 minutes. I don't suppose it's changed that much.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There is a average of 6 ad breaks per hour on US tv however the US ad breaks are shorter than the uk for example a average uk ad break is 3 minutes and you get 3 per hour, a USA tv ad break is 90 seconds you get 6 per hour this still equals the same ammount of ad time as UK.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Then why is it that US TV programmes which have an hour slot tend to only be 41-43 minutes long when the ads are removed?

Having visited quite a few States in the last few years, I can definitely state the ads take up more than 9 minutes per hour.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'll second (or is it 3rd) that !!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That's the reason why we record a lot of shows, we just skip past the ads.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Having watched tv via online ustv providers the ads work out about the same as uk tv when totalled up, not saying all the time but on average it does.
However ABC and FOX ads are certainly longer, but the rest seem to average about the same as UK when totted up.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

http://advanced-television.com/2017/...the-beginning/

What this says to me is that the global operators such as Netflix and Amazon will suck up a lot of the available content, leaving the terrestrial channels with little but their own content and 'well worn' older material and the less populat dregs of new material to offer their viewers.

Sadly, this points to more exclusivity of much wanted content, meaning we will still have to take out multiple subscriptions to view the programmes we want to see.

The article also implies to me that the terrestrials are going to have to up their game considerably in order to survive. I think the BBC and Channel 4 are well placed to take on this challenge. Not quite sure how ITV will fare, but it does seem to be heading in the right direction now.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

When watching recorded US shows the ad breaks tend to be around 5 mins, sometimes longer, occasionally on "dead of night" showings much shorter, some times no ad at all just fade out, programme screen, fade out, programme screen, fade out programme returns. That 5 mins may contain previews but that's just another sort of ad really.

So the programme can fit into 50 min slots and since the topic is loss of linear programming because everyone streams or watches the recording not working on a 60 min grid is fine.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Isn't it especially in the case of the BBC their own content what people are mainly interested in anyway ?

The bulk of the BBC's spend goes on original content.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It does, which is why I think that the BBC is best placed of all the terrestrials to succeed in the new media world.

The link below shows how the BBC is moving forward with its on demand strategy. They do appear to be wanting to actively encourage people to move from conventional linear channel viewing to streaming.

Incidentally, I am now convinced that Channel 5 is in danger of disappearing completely in this new world.

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201701124...#axzz4VdLi99a2

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB why just Netflix and Amazon there are other huge players ?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I gave Netflix and Amazon as examples, MM. They are certainly the main players with global clout in the UK for the time being, but obviously things may change over time. I fully expect HBO to make its presence felt in the UK before much longer.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Here's hoping! ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm sorry but I disagree what about Discovery , Fox , Viacom , Disney to name a few.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, we will see how this all works out. They are global players as they distribute their channels around the world, but their share of the market in terms of the number of subscribers they attract is likely to diminish while they continue to rely on the conventional model of broadcasting their content.

I guess that sooner or later the content owned by these providers will find their way onto their own dedicated streaming sites in the UK and elsewhere outside the US, and if this does indeed happen, I would be inclined to agree with you on that.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's been here for several years via Sky Atlantic.


Unless Sky decide to drop their current deal, which runs out in 2020 (highly unlikely), there it will stay.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Of course, PB, but I was referring to an on demand HBO site like Netflix.

Clearly, the existing contractual arrangements with Sky need to be honoured, but 2020 is only 3 years away, and my guess is they will be designing their site now in order to be ready by then.

Incidentally, there's nothing to stop them from creating a site right now and offering their content on a pay per view basis, as far as I know.

John Malone seems to have the right idea. I wonder when the acquisition of Startz and Lionsgate will start to benefit VM and LG subscribers?

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/64841...s-will-be-key/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You will never have a HBO streaming site whist HBO have a deal with Sky. I expect an announcement of a renewed Sky/HBO deal significantly prior to 2020.


Who want's PPV for HBO type content? Not many I suspect; it works out way more expensive than a subscription streaming service.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Inevitable PB.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Judging by the sheer number of PPV services out there, I guess it must pay!

HBO is reviewing the way it operates, so don't bet your pants on a new deal with Sky.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Oh dear with that type of prediction you might need to eat your hat before long.;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

-deleted after reading OBs post in coming soon i now know what he meant-

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

http://www.csimagazine.com/csi/Live-...big-growth.php

Live linear OTT set for big growth

With online video competition significantly increasing in mature payTV markets, new research forecasts that live linear OTT video services will grow to some $7 billion of worldwide revenue by 2021.

This will be from a base of $1 billion in 2016, says ABI Research, as service providers are decreasing marketing on their cable, satellite, and IPTV products that offer managed quality of service in favour of new products that use OTT technologies to compete with Amazon and Netflix. The most recent OTT service launch is DirecTV Now, an AT&T national product with live linear TV.

"These services meet the consumer demand for anytime, anywhere programming and mobile-centric viewing while targeting a larger national audience," says Sam Rosen, Managing Director and Vice President at ABI Research. "The services fit within carriers adopting mobile-first mindsets."

As mobile video consumption increases, mobile operators are exploring policy-based approaches to meet customer expectations and manage the effects of video services on mobile data caps.

The technical challenges are so significant that many operators made significant investments in technology platforms. AT&T/DirecTV purchased Quickplay Technologies to gain better control of its OTT launch. Even so, some outages occurred as the platform scaled. Disney took an equity stake in BAMTech (formerly MLB Advanced Media) to have better strategic control over its syndication platform.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Is this the beginning of the end for linear TV channels?

http://www.thejournal.ie/discovery-c...06618-Jan2017/

...In a statement to Variety, a Sky spokesperson said: “Despite our best efforts to reach a sensible agreement, we, like many other platforms and broadcasters across Europe, have found the price expectations for the Discovery portfolio to be completely unrealistic. Discovery’s portfolio of channels includes many which are linear-only, where viewing is falling.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It maybe just me but I've never found the PQ quite as good on programmes that are streamed rather than 'broadcasted'.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

BT is streamed and is superb quality.
Grey area here real debrid on kodi gives 1080p quality.
NBCsports imo is better pq than sky sports hd.
Also 've found xfinity streamed channels to be superb quality many times beating broadcast quality.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Still posting to that same narrow old remit of yours again OB.;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Seeing is believing, Den...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not if one has got rose tinted glasses on OB.;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's becoming clearer all the time now, Den. Even Sky are telling Discovery they are relying too much on linear.

The future direction is almost beyond doubt - unless you have convincing evidence to the contrary, old chap. If that's the case, you've kept it remarkably close to your chest.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Rubbish as Sky's motto is has always been to intimidate those who are smaller then itself so they can pay a lesser price for other companies content but alas when Sky sells its own content there is no realisticness there it seems.

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 ----------

In your opinion OB as while one respects your often articulate comments Linear TV is here to stay despite your protestations that it is going the way of the Dodo.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sky clearly have an agenda when it comes to competitiveness, I grant you, but the fact that they have actually drawn attention to their tardiness in offering on demand content is significant and gives us some insight to how Sky is thinking.

I think you will find that linear TV will be offered by way of streaming and on demand in future, Den. But don't fret, I am sure that this tectonic shift won't happen in the current decade!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I don't believe this will be the beginning of the end for linear TV, but I hope it might be the beginning of the end of the major platform providers forcing us to pay for channels we don't want to get the channels we do want.
Never again will I be forced into buying a bundle of channels to get access to the things I want, my viewing needs are supplied by Freeview and online services these days.

I am in agreement with Mr K, online streaming services are getting better each year but they're still not as good as broadcast HD.

I wont deny BT offer a great streaming picture quality but its not as good as the HD picture I used to get through VM.
I'm not sure what you're watching NBC Sports on but on my 48" TV even their 1080P streams are not as good as ESPN, Fox Sports or BBC Iplayers 720P streams let alone watching Sky Sports in HD.

For what its worth here's how I'd rank the online services for sports viewing:-
1/ ESPN/BBC Iplayer, not a lot to choose between these two, about the closest available to broadcast HD.
2/ BT Sports/Fox2go, fractionally below the above but still very watchable
3/Eurosport Player/Now TV, pretty good but in the middle ground between SD and HD via traditional methods
4/NBC Sports, as #3 but slightly worse

All that being said I appreciate I'm lucky to have a very dear friend in the US who lets me use their cable login to access the US services and would never complain about the quality on them and will take the slight drop in quality on the UK services I pay for to not have the ridiculously large bill I'd have with VM to get them.

I'll venture into your grey area and say Real Debrid would be a must if I used Kodi for TV and movie watching but people should not be fooled by the headline resolution, quite often the HD variants on the grey area Kodi addons offer a pretty low bitrate and I'd liken them to the now defunct yify group encodes (if you use VM's broadband there's a way to get movies in Bluray quality and TV shows as good as they originally aired for free without resorting to risky torrents but that's not a conversation for an open forum like this)