Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36004890)

Doubt Openreach would agree.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36004930)

So basically half the UK. Probably the same half that already have fast broadband.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36004930)

So basically half the UK. Probably the same half that already have fast broadband.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36004940)

Good find, that silenced a few doubters!!

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36004950)

I think Max was being ironic.

There is a heavy Northern Ireland bias to the list, though. VM are also doing a lot of building there. Is there a particular incentive offered?

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36004954)

what do we call as fast internet these days?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36004883)

The BBC planning for something and actually doing something is two separate things. You continue to clutch at that one ignoring ITV, Channel 4, Sky (those that rely on viewers/subscribers and not the tv tax) have announced no such plans.

Also the whole country won’t have adequate broadband in “a few years” - even the ISPs themselves have wrote to the PM outlining the massive task it’d be to achieve this by 2025, let alone 2033.

All the while linear television, terrestrial and satellite, continues to beam glorious high definition pictures universally and people continue to watch despite having the option of on demand options.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36006567)

All the big commercial companies will want more ads to increase their revenue, on the basis another minute of ads on ITV will squeeze the channels with lower ratings. It's perfectly rational and doesn't change my analysis.

Just for you though I'm talking up streaming

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...8&postcount=20

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36006611)

The most lucrative returns from commercials come when younger adults watch them in droves. This is what brings in the readies for the TV channels.It seems that the millenials are veering away from the footie and do not watch the traditionally broadcast tv channels habitually, preferring to stream YouTube and Netflix. So the advertising that produces the best results will dry up, thus reducing advertising income still further.

It's all very well to claim that older people will continue to prefer the TV channels they are used to watching, but commercials aimed at them just don't really hit the spot. Advertisers won't want to pay a fortune to attract pensioners. This is why we will soon see a rapid decline of scheduled TV channels. What is to prevent it?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36006611)

The most lucrative returns from commercials come when younger adults watch them in droves. This is what brings in the readies for the TV channels.It seems that the millenials are veering away from the footie and do not watch the traditionally broadcast tv channels habitually, preferring to stream YouTube and Netflix. So the advertising that produces the best results will dry up, thus reducing advertising income still further.

It's all very well to claim that older people will continue to prefer the TV channels they are used to watching, but commercials aimed at them just don't really hit the spot. Advertisers won't want to pay a fortune to attract pensioners. This is why we will soon see a rapid decline of scheduled TV channels. What is to prevent it?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36006611)

The most lucrative returns from commercials come when younger adults watch them in droves. This is what brings in the readies for the TV channels.It seems that the millenials are veering away from the footie and do not watch the traditionally broadcast tv channels habitually, preferring to stream YouTube and Netflix. So the advertising that produces the best results will dry up, thus reducing advertising income still further.

It's all very well to claim that older people will continue to prefer the TV channels they are used to watching, but commercials aimed at them just don't really hit the spot. Advertisers won't want to pay a fortune to attract pensioners. This is why we will soon see a rapid decline of scheduled TV channels. What is to prevent it?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36006579)

Broadly I don't disagree with the principles of many of the points you've made. It's the final destination (no linear TV at all) and timescales I disagree over.

There are plenty of linear channels with a far smaller budget than ITV or Channel 4.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007451)

Well, this is an example of how scheduled linear tv will lose content to the streamers. Face it, the conventional channels are being attacked on all sides. They have no long term future. Make the most of it while you can.

https://www.rxtvlog.com/2019/08/disn...ch-window.html

Sky, which at one point looked as if it would come under the control of Disney before being snapped up by Comcast, has announced in the past week that it will be saying goodbye to two Disney-run services on its German and Austrian platforms, including film channel Cinemagic, sparking debate on whether Sky Cinema Disney and other linear Disney channels will continue in the UK and Ireland on Sky when current arrangements end in 2020. The current deal with Sky is likely to be the reason why the UK isn't among the first countries to get Disney+.

Disney already pulled its children's TV service off Sky's Now TV in 2016, in a move linked to Disney's desire to control more of its rights on online platforms. But Disney has since gained access to a lot of content that's traditionally been broadcast on Sky, including National Geographic programming and first-run The Simpsons on Sky 1, meaning the stakes will be high for Sky.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007451)

Well, this is an example of how scheduled linear tv will lose content to the streamers. Face it, the conventional channels are being attacked on all sides. They have no long term future. Make the most of it while you can.

https://www.rxtvlog.com/2019/08/disn...ch-window.html

Sky, which at one point looked as if it would come under the control of Disney before being snapped up by Comcast, has announced in the past week that it will be saying goodbye to two Disney-run services on its German and Austrian platforms, including film channel Cinemagic, sparking debate on whether Sky Cinema Disney and other linear Disney channels will continue in the UK and Ireland on Sky when current arrangements end in 2020. The current deal with Sky is likely to be the reason why the UK isn't among the first countries to get Disney+.

Disney already pulled its children's TV service off Sky's Now TV in 2016, in a move linked to Disney's desire to control more of its rights on online platforms. But Disney has since gained access to a lot of content that's traditionally been broadcast on Sky, including National Geographic programming and first-run The Simpsons on Sky 1, meaning the stakes will be high for Sky.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007464)

Streaming providers face the same content challenge. This isn't a victory for streaming over linear, it's simply the end to end vertical integration of content by a single provider.

The question you haven't asked is whether Disney doing this makes a viable platform as opposed to the guaranteed income month in month out from existing platforms. As yet untested.

Of course, your digital advertising blogs won't ask that question!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007464)

Streaming providers face the same content challenge. This isn't a victory for streaming over linear, it's simply the end to end vertical integration of content by a single provider.

The question you haven't asked is whether Disney doing this makes a viable platform as opposed to the guaranteed income month in month out from existing platforms. As yet untested.

Of course, your digital advertising blogs won't ask that question!

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007508)

So you think it will just be Disney doing this and the platform is untested? Disney owns Hulu and ESPN+ both tried and trusted platforms in the states so far from untested. They also own Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, National Geographic, and 20th Century Fox. So their offering will be a huge library of existing content plus new content being added continuously of films, series etc.

It is merely the start of new content delivery that you've all been slagging OB of for. I've agreed with OB before and still agree with him.

Time to get your heads out of the sand.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007562)

Which is another way of saying that multiple TV channels will be replaced by far fewer streaming services, which is what I've been saying all along.

The fact that you question the viability of these platforms does not mean it is a problem. If it was, these companies wouldn't be taking this route, would they?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007575)

The perfect example of this is Eleven Sports / La Liga. They believed a market was there for a product that simply wasn't.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36007574)

With the end result people paying far more.

A Now TV Cinema pass subscriber can get it for £11.99 normal or even less if they shop around for passes and 3/6 month deals.

Under this new world you'll need a Sky sub (Universal) , HBO Max (Warner) , Disney + (Disney) plus whatever the likes of Paramount and Sony decide to do.

Good luck at getting that in anyway near a tenner and there are many who like to watch movies from across the studios.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007575)

I didn't say the platform was untested, I said the business model was. It remains to be seen whether Disney retailing direct to consumers makes more profit than their wholesale distribution models.

---------- Post added at 12:17 ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 ----------



Hmm.

No, because not every business is a success, failure is a possibility. Some may find themselves coming cap in hand to existing platforms or other streaming services to bundle their content.

The perfect example of this is Eleven Sports / La Liga. They believed a market was there for a product that simply wasn't.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007575)

Hmm.

No, because not every business is a success, failure is a possibility. Some may find themselves coming cap in hand to existing platforms or other streaming services to bundle their content.

The perfect example of this is Eleven Sports / La Liga. They believed a market was there for a product that simply wasn't.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36007584)

Come off it OB your admitting it's more costly by going around the houses , the politician in you again.

Most people prefer a value for money one subscription covers it all (ie all the latest movies irrelevant of the Movie Studio )

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007579)

Each streaming service will offer a wealth of programming and will be good value for money.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007579)

There might be a market for it, but not having a platform like Sky or Virgin to broadcast from, they were sunk.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007586)

You said it would be more expensive and I've told you why it wouldn't be.

Despite what you say, there are plenty of people on these forums who endlessly talk about switching, obtaining the best deals and so forth. With streamers, you are able to access huge amounts of good content very cheaply. Switching streamers is extremely easy, as you well know.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007586)

You said it would be more expensive and I've told you why it wouldn't be.

Despite what you say, there are plenty of people on these forums who endlessly talk about switching, obtaining the best deals and so forth. With streamers, you are able to access huge amounts of good content very cheaply. Switching streamers is extremely easy, as you well know.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36007587)

Another statement , another load of bollocks...

---------- Post added at 14:26 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------



They were sunk even if they had gained carriage on Sky and Virgin.

The market for them was just not there end of.....

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:26 ----------



So given your obsessive narrative of the last 5 years plus regarding streaming then you are obviously not putting your money where your mouth is and here we are you are still a Virgin customer but alas it seems someone else is wearing the trousers in your household it seems..;)

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36007591)

Except you aren't switching for the same content , so to get just a fraction of what Sky Cinema has you'll pay more.

It's not difficult for most to understand. Who can be arsed to keep switching when a new movie is released talk about a step backwards.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007595)

That's why switching a service now and then will give you better access to a whole variety of programmes through different providers.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36007628)

So in your brave new world, we'll all be spending hours trawling through the content listings of the miriad of streaming services to make sure we don't miss something worth watching? Sounds a bit too much like hard work for me I'm afraid and I can guarantee Mrs G wouldn't be having any of it either - she likes to watch TV not content listings.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36007628)

So in your brave new world, we'll all be spending hours trawling through the content listings of the miriad of streaming services to make sure we don't miss something worth watching? Sounds a bit too much like hard work for me I'm afraid and I can guarantee Mrs G wouldn't be having any of it either - she likes to watch TV not content listings.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007630)

You'll also need to keep track of what is premiering when, and where, to ensure you can alter your subscriptions month on month so you don't miss anything you want to see!

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36007637)

Glad it's not just me then.:D

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36007628)

So in your brave new world, we'll all be spending hours trawling through the content listings of the miriad of streaming services to make sure we don't miss something worth watching? Sounds a bit too much like hard work for me I'm afraid and I can guarantee Mrs G wouldn't be having any of it either - she likes to watch TV not content listings.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36007591)

Except you aren't switching for the same content , so to get just a fraction of what Sky Cinema has you'll pay more.

It's not difficult for most to understand. Who can be arsed to keep switching when a new movie is released talk about a step backwards.

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36007648)

Quite easy to keep track of new shows/movie, premiers etc with sites such as tvtime and trakt.tv but we are a very long way from linear tv being redundant, it will eventually but not in our lifetime one feels.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007508)

So you think it will just be Disney doing this and the platform is untested? Disney owns Hulu and ESPN+ both tried and trusted platforms in the states so far from untested. They also own Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, National Geographic, and 20th Century Fox. So their offering will be a huge library of existing content plus new content being added continuously of films, series etc.

It is merely the start of new content delivery that you've all been slagging OB of for. I've agreed with OB before and still agree with him.

Time to get your heads out of the sand.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007649)

I'm guessing the average television user wants it, or an attached device, to tell them what's on.

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36007654)

I still buy a tv listings magazine haha but imo you can't beat the good old epg.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36007655)

Yup, it aint rocket science to just have a wee flick through the EPG to see what you want to watch, but wait, there are others on here who think that's way beyond them! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36007653)

Spot on, i'll bet most of them thought we'd never have the broadband speeds we have now, and as for Den, I'm sure he's convinced that black and white TV is miles better....;):D

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36007653)

Spot on, i'll bet most of them thought we'd never have the broadband speeds we have now, and as for Den, I'm sure he's convinced that black and white TV is miles better....;):D

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007670)

I fail to see the relevance of the broadband comparison. People are using more data in many different ways. Obviously, technology moves to fit and consumer behaviour. It's all just an evolution of internet.

What is being discussed here isn't comparable. A valid comparison would be a prediction that BT/Virgin and other existing suppliers would be replaced by many suppliers who aren't in the direct to home market yet because people would prefer to buy 4 or 5 different speed bundles and add them together to get 500 meg, than just buy it from Virgin.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007674)

Again you're arguing just for the sake of it. The only reason broadband speed has been mentioned is as an enabler. It enables streaming as a valid alternative.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007677)

I'm not arguing for the sake of it. The comparison isn't valid and is being deployed to imply certain members of the forum hold outdated views. Which simply isn't the case.

Nobody here doesn't like streaming as a technology, but there's limitations that will make it much more difficult for it to outright replace linear - my only point has ever been the difficulty in reducing linear channels to zero.

A proportion of British consumers need regulation because they are too lazy to shop around for better deals on gas and electricity. A further proportion seems happy to continue paying a mobile phone contract beyond the minimum period rather than switch to a SIM only deal. However they are going to rotate around streaming services every couple of months!

All we are seeing here is a small number of users and their confirmation bias in action.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007678)

I agree the comparison wasn't valid because there was no such comparison going on.
Comparing gas, electricity and mobiles to streaming isn't a valid comparison either.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007681)

You fail to see how consumer apathy, and preferences for straightforward choices, could have an impact on this? Fair enough.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007683)

What I'm saying is making the comparison you made is not valid. You do not have more than 1 electricity supplier at a time do you? The same can be said for your other choices.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007685)

The fact people are reluctant to change despite tangibly better value elsewhere demonstrates that there's a group of consumers who will have no interest in chopping and changing streaming providers for "better value" that's entirely subjective.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007689)

Then those people will use either one streamer or multiple ones. Better value doesn't enter into it for instance where other than Disney+ could I watch their content at better value? Answer, Nowhere.
Do you now see the stupidity in your argument?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007690)

You are assuming TV viewers relate to companies the way football fans view their teams. E.g. someone will feel that Disney content is "must have" and that as a product it exists in isolation. It obviously doesn't, it's up against the range of streaming (and linear) alternatives in the marketplace.

I can only hope you see the stupidity in your argument.

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 36007625)

I am confused. OB has written he is 'halfway there' to his streaming heaven. It is a reasonable assumption that therefore he has cut down on the number of linear channels available in his house in favour of streaming. Yet I am sure he told us he has just subscribed to VM's top package with the maximum available number of linear channels, all the more surprising as he often writes he does not like sport.

Perhaps Mrs OB does not share her hubby's enthusiasm for streaming.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007692)

Thank you all for your views on this, which are very interesting. I do think that some of you are fearful of the migration to streaming services because you don't actually use them at the moment.

Let me address some of these points.

Grim talks about trawling through content listings of a miriad of streaming services being too much like hard work. I understand that concern. However, what is not being acknowledged is that if you are subscribing to Netflix or Prime, you will get regular emails telling you of new stuff that is now available. Additionally, if you go to the streaming service itself, all the new films and series appear in one place. I know so many of you believe that the EPG is their friend, but how much more difficult is it to look at stuff available on the Home page than trawling through the EPG? It is not a problem.

I note the worries about keeping track of programmes offered by a diverse range of streamers. However, in the future, no doubt Virgin Media, Sky and BT will offer a page where all the programmes and films are displayed from different providers by category and popularity. This is the route being taken by Roku and I am absolutely certain that other providers will follow.

Also, people are not recognising that there will be various means of selecting your programmes, for example by voice activation. You will be able to ask your V6 to find you, say, 'The Crown', and that will be displayed, with the name of the provider, and all that remains for you to do is click on it, assuming you subscribe to that service. The Amazon Fire Stick displays a menu of programmes that are provided by both Prime and Netflix, which scotches the negative thinking of some who still believe that one service would not show programmes provided by another. On the contrary, it is this 'everything on one box' which the streamers are now aware is a popular feature that they can replicate on their own menus.

Grim is also worried about swapping streamers on the right day to ensure no overlap in subscriptions. To be honest, I think people will change streamers occasionally rather than every month, but presumably, everyone has a diary if dates are critical to ensure you don't overspend your budget. Just enter the date on your mobile phone and set the alert!

jfman, as ever, throws a few wobblers. I think most of these points have been answered over time, but in relation to his statement about few suppliers being replaced by many suppliers, I simply don't agree that this will be a problem. Virgin Media and BT see themselves as super-aggregators, and although Sky has a lot of its own content, it probably (reluctantly, I suspect) sees itself going that way as well. If it didn't, why have they embraced Netflix?

Ultimately, there will be a whole range of streamers available, and Virgin/BT/Sky will offer various packages so you can choose what you want, much as you have some choice of channels now with various packages. For channels, think streamers, and everything should fall into place. jfman's analogy isn't really relevant because what we should be comparing are the many channels with the fewer number of streamers.

Although Legendkiller supposes that we are a long way from linear tv being made redundant, in common with many who believe things will change very gradually, I cannot agree with this. The pace of change is quickening in just about every field and technology is what is changing fastest of all. We are not waiting for the very last viewer to stop watching scheduled linear tv before it is put to bed. However, there comes a point where the number of viewers on these channels is insufficient to sustain them any longer. Our resident economist still carries his staunch belief that a TV channel can run on a sixpence, but if the advertising revenue is insuffiient to pay for decent content, people won't watch and advertisers won't advertise. I have said it before, but when ITV's advertising revenue crashed a few years ago, it was in serious trouble. That lesson needs to be learned. The number of people watching streaming services has mushroomed to over 52% of the TV audience. This is only going one way.

Of course, the people to worry about in all this are the poor, who could not run to spending their money on pay tv or streamers. This will be catered for when the TV licence is scrapped and they can use that money to subscribe to Britbox and Netflix, or whatever other combination they choose. There will also be subscription free services supported by advertisements, ensuring that everyone has plenty of choice in the future.

I acknowledge that the issues around sports broadcasting have yet to be resolved, but have no doubt that all sport will be streamed in the future.

---------- Post added at 14:26 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------



Come on, jfman! Just how far into absurdity can you go?

People will choose which streamers they subscribe to by the content and the price. Isn't that obvious?

Some people will delight in swapping services a lot, others will be interested in sticking with the ones they initially select. I still have a huge amount of content to watch on Netflix and Prime, so why would some people feel compelled to chop and change? You are thinking through problems that don't exist.

---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:26 ----------



No, it is not a reasonable assumption, oliver. For example, by ditching my subscription to pay tv channels, I would not have easy access to many documentaries shown on the Discovery and other channels, the TLC, Lifetime and Quest Red stuff that my wife likes, the Virgin Media UHD channel, the Virgin Media Exclusives and so on. Additionally, I don't want all my programmes scattered around on various playlists - I want them all in one place.

Once VM or another provider can offer me that and I'm not missing out on the programmes we want to see, I will change over. But of course we are not there yet.

I am subscribed to the top VM package because it is available to me at only £1 above the price I was paying without the Sky premium channels. The fact that Sky Sports channels are included is as irrelevant to me as BT Sport being included in the old Full House. They go with the deal, which has saved me £10.99 in subscriptions for the Movie Pass on Now TV.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007701)

Far from being fearful I actually subscribe to three of them!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007701)

Old Boy you have now contradicted yourself. People will not chop and change: Netflix and Prime will have more than enough television for anyone. An interesting notion, as ever the economist in me wonders what space there is in the market for new entrants at all if that statement holds true? It also appears to not enough content for your own household given you pay Virgin an eyewatering £99 a month for their services.

Originally Posted by OLD BOYS

Our resident economist still carries his staunch belief that a TV channel can run on a sixpence, but if the advertising revenue is insuffiient to pay for decent content,

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007701)

Far from being fearful I actually subscribe to three of them!

Couple of points though:

People will subscribe based on content and choice. Somewhat obviously. However that same basis has Sky the market leader in this country and Virgin moving along nicely. Millions actually choose not to have pay-tv altogether. If people are agnostic to the delivery method, which I believe most are, why would that change? If they feel strong why can't the market leaders adapt?

Point 2

Old Boy you have now contradicted yourself. People will not chop and change: Netflix and Prime will have more than enough television for anyone. An interesting notion, as ever the economist in me wonders what space there is in the market for new entrants at all if that statement holds true? It also appears to not enough content for your own household given you pay Virgin an eyewatering £99 a month for their services.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36007703)

As our household does as well but as usual OB's musings are full of his own contradictions...

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------



By heck that is one of the biggest contradictions of one of many by OB.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007717)

Oh I missed this bit:



Once again an inability to answer my actual point results in you redefining it to one that suits you better.

I've always said to a major content owner the additional costs of linear in addition to other distribution models is pennies by comparison. We have hundreds of linear channels many of which have tiny viewer shares.

By comparison, even 10% of households watching linear only television gives a larger target audience than the Republic of Ireland. I'm sure they have television over there.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007724)

ITV, the largest non-state, non-subscription service in the country isn't a major owner of content? They just broadcast thousands of hours of nothing per month? They produce, and own the rights to, plenty of content.

You're, unsurprisingly, clinging to the ridiculous now.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36007733)

Doesn't look optional to me. Shut them down.:D

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007724)

ITV, the largest non-state, non-subscription service in the country isn't a major owner of content? They just broadcast thousands of hours of nothing per month? They produce, and own the rights to, plenty of content.

You're, unsurprisingly, clinging to the ridiculous now.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007730)

I just spotted a further Old Boy classic.

when the TV licence is scrapped

There we have it. All this chat has almost nothing to do with diversity of content, emerging tech or a brave and exciting future. It's Old Boy and his preference to dismantle almost anything state funded in favour of the private sector. Regardless of whether this is overseas companies or not.

The biggest barrier to this, of course, is the notion you can buy a television in this country plug it in and watch the BBC.

His fantasy is only fulfilled if linear goes because the BBC will have to be there if it continues to exist.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007744)

Of course they own content, but they will no longer be able to buy in content because it will go to the streamers.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007692)

Thank you all for your views on this, which are very interesting. I do think that...
I understand that concern... what is not being acknowledged... I know so many of you believe... but how much more difficult is it...I note the worries... ... no doubt Virgin Media, Sky and BT will... I am absolutely certain that other providers will follow.

Also, people are not recognising... You will be able to... and all that remains for you to do... which scotches the negative thinking...

Grim is also worried... I think people will... Just enter the date on your mobile phone and set the alert!

jfman, as ever, throws a few wobblers. I think most of these points have been answered over time

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007734)

"Mr Johnson said". Can you find it in a contract, agreement, primary or secondary legislation?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36007746)

About big statement but alas with no substantiation to it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007744)

Of course they own content, but they will no longer be able to buy in content because it will go to the streamers.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007748)

Just sit and watch what happens to the Disney material on Sky, Den, and you might wish to review your comment.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007748)

Oh, so you're questioning what the PM says as well, are you? Ok......:p:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007747)

Not that I've read.



Do you work in the field? If not, that's a curious use of 'we'.



Interesting way to describe streamers not offering value for a little more than the price of a London pint.



Except for the linear dinosaurs like your wife, apparently.



No you don't, that's why are are still here five years on having the same debate.



No.



Prioritise that and get Vodafone broadband for £21 a month and a SIM for £15, net saving £63 a month.



You are right they don't exist - only the fantasy in your mind.



Oh?



A curious way to say that it represents extraordinary value.



Cheaper than streaming it, I suppose!

You have all the credibility of a communist dictator enjoying all the exuberances of capitalism while telling the proletariat what to think.

Comrades!

You should get streaming! Uou should satisfy yourself with less choice! greater expense! You should lose straightforward access to content and instead use a range of apps! It will be wonderful!

I'll sit with my V6 on the full package, the market leading product but if you could all cancel to assist the achievement of my glorious vision for the future, that'd be much appreciated!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007748)

and you might wish to review your comment.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007752)

I challenge you to find it in a legally binding contract, Charter, primary or secondary legislation.

Tony Blair said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Theresa May said there would be no 2017 General Election.

Your faith in politicians might explain your faith in digital marketing blogs though!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36007751)

l will sit and watch and nothing will happen l suspect so that's the end of that....

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007756)

Don't challenge me, challenge the PM!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36007754)

As with before l suspect that you will be the one eating humble pie...

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007757)

Or just watch something else on the hundreds of linear channels and tens of thousands of hours of on demand content available? :confused:

I don't know why Old Boy seems to think Disney have viewers the same was as Manchester United have 'fans'.

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------



So you can't find it? I have asked you to reference something that must be publicly available.

Thanks for clarification. And you accuse me of trolling!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007761)

I ask, for the third time, can you evidence where the BBC would be acting illegally after 2020 if it didn't fund TV licences for the over-75s.

You are the one trying to take me to task here with something that should be available in a Charter, primary or secondary legislation. It's a quick win, surely?

Unless you simply made it up. I can't prove something doesn't exist!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007763)

It's the same point as the Government saying it can push it to subscription services during the Charter.

What Boris says, and what Boris can do (also known as reality), are two different things.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007683)

What I'm saying is making the comparison you made is not valid. You do not have more than 1 electricity supplier at a time do you? The same can be said for your other choices.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36007770)

You don't change your electric supplier ever month either!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007586)

You said it would be more expensive and I've told you why it wouldn't be.

Despite what you say, there are plenty of people on these forums who endlessly talk about switching, obtaining the best deals and so forth. With streamers, you are able to access huge amounts of good content very cheaply. Switching streamers is extremely easy, as you well know.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36007801)

Except for the fact that Disney will release it's new shows weekly very clever considering they'll have only a fraction of what Netflix has currently at launch.

So not as easy as you suggest to swap if you are watching something with a lot of episodes that get added weekly.

Disney will be safe because of the amount and popularity of the content they own as will some of the established players although they may struggle to grow at the rate they once did. Others will struggle though in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36007806)

Add to that, Disney and Amazon offer a lower annual subscription rate. If you want the freedom to pay monthly and hop on and off a service, you will pay a premium for it.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007817)

What's wrong with that Chris? If you want to lock yourself in to a 12 month contract you get a discount. It's called freedom of choice.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36007824)

There’s nothing wrong with it at all. My point is, hopping on and off services from month to month costs more and therefore may be a less common pastime than OB is predicting.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007827)

Well OB is predicting a three monthly change whereas I predict in the main it will be monthly in the beginning.

Yes, it will cost more but will be worth it for the sheer amount of different content IMHO.

Really it all depends on the content available from each streamer. Disney+ will be giving us Marvel, Star Wars etc. MGM Stargate + the rest. Everyone will tailor their choice of streamer to suit their tastes.

Only once we know what is out there and from whom will it settle down and people will pehaps choose 2 or 3 on a 12 month contract and have a couple of others for the odd month for certain content.