Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

i'm not hung up about anything. I'm simply speculating on what is to come.

I mentioned the licence fee because by abolishing it, those who cannot afford a subscription now would have some money to use for streaming services instead.

Your reference to where the money comes from initially to fund commercial channels is not relevant to this argument because there will always be a proportion of money put into budgets to fund advertising.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

1. It's the programmes on Sky Atlantic that I want, not necessarily the channel.

2. My complaint about the adverts related to the fact that they are so prevalent on our commercial TV stations. I could put up with two or three at the beginning of a programme, as long as the programme was not interrupted, and I could put up with adverts adorning a list of what's available on the content provider's site. Currently, our access on TV to Netflix is advert free.

3/4. We agree! :)

5. It's rather expensive that way. It is more likely that people will subscribe to one or more content providers, which is not very expensive. As I said, those with limited budgets would simply pick their content using the licence fee money that would no longer be payable (under my scenario). Netflix costs rather less than £20 a month! In the future there will be content providers that provide a full range of entertainment, including news, sport, films and TV series, for less than we currently pay on our TV licence, which is double the current Netflix fee. As for the Lovefilm thing, I'm so over DVDs! Streaming is much simpler (as long as the technology works).

By the way, and once again, I'm not advocating a personal preference for ditching linear channels. I simply think that in time (how long may be debatable), people will start to see that streaming is a better solution to quality viewing than broadcast TV. :cool:

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:24 ----------

Can you actually name a streaming device that shows all the streaming video providers? At the moment, from what I can see, if you want Netflix, you can't have Amazon Prime, and vice versa.

Anyway, as I keep saying, I want all of this on one device. For me, the TIVO is the most appropriate device to add these streaming services.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The best that I have found, excluding games consoles (which are expensive), are LG Bluray players which have Netflix, Amazon and Now TV.

Are you really serious? The vast majority of the population, based on viewing figures, would lose far more than they gain.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Netflix and Amazon instant are available on Amazon Fire TV , Samsung Smart Blu Ray players which also include all the catch up apps.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Amazon plus Netflix on there own cost more per month than the licence fee. How are you going to include these extra services?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Your argument regarding advertising budgets, is flawed. Companies will never be able to afford advertising without the money added into the price of the product. All monies from sales are syphoned off into various difference pots, and whatever is left is then profit. If there was not a pot for advertising (before profits) the ad budget would come out of the profit. No business could sustain itself operating this way. If a tv company raised the ad fees each year, the shop would be ruined in a few short years.
Put simply, the ad money comes from us when we buy products.

With regards, commercial adverts, again I will ask why would you not just manage your viewing schedule?

With regards doing away with the license fee, how are the BBC supposed to operate?!? Goodbye MOTD etc, it was nice knowing you. How would I be able keep up to date with The Ashes by listening to the wonderful TMS commentary. Bear in mind I refuse to pay for SS and would not want to pay a fee for the awful highlights from Channel 5? What if I like original British programs, and did not want to watch repeats on Netflix etc or American shows?

Doing away with the license fee would indeed free up money for Netflix and Amazon (or any two other streaming services) only. How are people going to afford anything else if they can still only afford two services though? Their TV watching will be pretty limited bearing in mind there will be no BBC, ITV, C4, C5 channels broadcasting FTA because the license fee will no longer be around and people will have to pay for ITV etc, and we will still be paying for the adverts in front of the shows and on the websites. So in my eyes, your thoughts involve people spending considerably more money than they do now, for much, much less. You may be right, it may happen, but how do the less well off survive in this market?

It's nothing personal OB, I do disagree that streaming will become better than linear tv in my lifetime though. I just enjoy a good debate - as you have probably figured out by now.:).

Fair enough with the DVD's I love the service though. Cheap, effective and better stability than streaming, with much better insight into the films. I tried renting Gone Girl Saturday night, but surprise, surprise there was an issue with on demand. How in this day and age, in a strong VM area, can I have an issue with on demand, esp. with the years of experience VM have had delivering on demand services? Madness.

No, I don't think you can get the lot on one device.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Some further reading material:

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201502103...#axzz3RL2USBZs

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You may have read too much into my post. My reference to advertising budgets merely acknowledged that companies budgeted for advertising, and I wasn't suggesting that the money would come from anywhere other than the price of the product - I'm not quite sure how you read this into my comments.

Yes, I can manage my viewing schedule; in fact, this is what I do now. But this isn't about me, I am looking to the future and what may be decided by those who control these things.

I envisage that BBC and ITV will be funded in future with more limited advertising and more by subscriptions and programme rights. ITV is already reducing its reliance on advertising for its very survival and has been incredibly successful in developing its income streams by way of new studio productions and sales, for example.

In the future I can see BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (not sure about 5!) having their own streaming sites, although they could get together to share the cost of setting them up and running them. We already have the On Demand players, of course, but they may no longer be free services and may contain much more content.

The BBC will certainly not be able to trouser so much money as they do now, but they will still have a decent budget with limited advertising and the sale of programmes abroad and to other UK sites who want to have their offerings available on their sites as well.

Original programmes would not disappear - Netflix is showing the way to developing their own material as well as making a decent profit into the bargain.

Regarding affordability, I would imagine that most people with limited resources would be signing up to Netflix and the on demand (or successor) services for their existing terrestrial feast. I can't see them also getting Amazon, although they may choose to do that rather than Netflix, or some other combination. Those of us with money would probably subscribe to all the sites that can offer us the variety we want. Some of these would be subscription, some pay per view.

Incidentally, I do envisage a much better choice of streaming service providers in the future. It would be wrong to look at things as they stand now and believe that it will still look the same in ten years' time. If the choice is there, and it's free of constant advert interruptions and its viewable when you want to view it, what is there not to like?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

1. Too much choice is the enemy. Hence why the top 5 EPG slots are reserved by law, rather than sold to the highest bidder, which would always be Sky, because;
2. Sky has understood from the outset that as you can't get audiences of more than about 2 million for anything other than live football, and therefore has to charge a subscription *and* run 15 minutes of adverts per hour in order to cover the cost of its premier US imports and still turn a profit.

Oh, and

3. It is unlikely that the UK's broadband infrastructure will have sufficient bandwidth, and reach, to replace broadcast as the official public service delivery platform, any time in the next 15 years. So no, for a great many people, it wouldn't even be viewabke when you want it. ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Will reply properly when I am sober!! However, if you hate adverts so much, how can you advocate the use of adverts on BBC? Also why would commercially fundeed channels want to help fund the BBC to launch a streaming channel.

You are contradictiong yourself regarding Netflix and Amazon now too,

Far too many faults in your recent argument....in fact I may even ignore your latest comments tomorrow. We will see in the the morning though.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

BT are already rolling out superfast broadband across the country on behalf of the Government. Do you really think that will take 15 years? Take a decade off that and you'll be closer to the mark.

---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

I think you may be misinterpreting my meanings!

On adverts, I am really annoyed at the constant interruptions to programmes. On Sky, an hour long programme can be reduced to 45 minutes easily if you fast forward through them. Up to 3 ads just before your selection I can tolerate, but I would fast forward through them as well if the facility was there!

I have not contradicted myself on Amazon and Netflix. I think XL type subscribers would probably tend to get both, but poorer subscribers would choose between them, or just go for what is currently the terrestrial choice. Incidentally, I think there will be a bigger choice of video streaming providers in the future.

Why do you think that the commercial TV companies would not collaborate with the BBC on an agreed platform to reduce costs? That principle has already been established.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That's probably because all US Network shows (ABC, Fox etc.) are timed to run for a total of about 43 minutes.

US Cable shows (HBO, Showtime etc.) can run almost up to the full hour.

Given that UK TV starts all 'hour long' shows on the top of the hour, what choice do Sky or any other UK broadcaster have? And it's the add revenue that funds the show's purchase!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm not blaming Sky for that. My point is simply that streaming avoids this incredible waste of time.

I understand completely the issue about funding through advertisements. However, ITV are already having to reduce their reliance on ads and develop alternative revenue streams (eg through increased production sales, product placement, etc).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But they are still going to need advertising.

You either have Add funded, or Subscription funded. To think you can have a subscription free service without adverting is delusional IMHO.

Some US services, such as Hulu Plus and CBS All Access are subscription and also have adds.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There will be less reliance on advertising (unless they find other methods of bombarding us).

They will all have to be ad funded, subscription funded or pay per view, or a combination of these. But in the scenario I've painted, we won't have the BBC licence fee. I know that many will gasp at the prospect of the TV licence days going, but the Government is already looking at this.

The money saved can be put towards the new services.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Of course they are; their heart lies with Rupert. They represent the people for whom Pay TV is an insignificant cost.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Lets say we drop to 3 ads per show. Would you agree that becomes 3 companies who are able to advertise per show? I would hope you do, it seems very logical to me.

What do you think will be the outcome if this ever happened? Big companies will spend massive amounts of money to get the rights to show the ads ahead of the most popular shows on TV - Eastenders, Corrie, GBBO, X factor, Broadchurch etc. With these shows now on-demand, there will be no limit to how many shows they can put their ads on, because we will only watch one show at a time. Please don't tell we will start regulating who can advertise and on what shows, that will never work.

Ironically, I reckon companies will spend much more money on adverts because they will still want to advertise on the best shows. Imagine how much money Tesco or Asda will need to spend to get their "we are cheaper than Tesco/Asda" adverts out. It will be an all out bidding war between huge companies with massive pockets for the top shows, and the cost will then filter down to the cost of the products.

Whilst we are on the topic of adverts, what happens to the current sponsors of the shows now? Do they still get to sponsor the show? If they do, does their mini sponsor ad count as one of the three ads you think will be acceptable, if so, we now only have two other spaces for companies per show, and I refer you back to my point about bidding wars for the limited advertising space. If it does not count as one of the three, are there now 4 ads per show and is that acceptable?

Lets also say you right and the BBC loses the license fee too and millions of families can still only afford a limited budget the same as the old license fee.

Lets say an average family watches Pointless (or any other daily weekday show) and it becomes pay per view and I have to watch adverts before it starts. Firstly, I am already hacked off cos I have to watch adverts. Secondly, how much does one episode cost? 99p? Lets say it is shown 22 times a month (30 days minus 8 days for the weekends.) that will cost a hard up family £21.78 - just for one show. Even if it only costs 49p, it is still £10.78. That is almost the cost of the monthly licence now, and they still can't afford Netflix either. Do you really think the tv companies will want to limit the amount of shows people can watch to one show per day? Surely that will not help them sell advertising space on the lesser watched shows.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Regarding the advertisements, who knows how this will pan out in the future. There is a similar argument you can apply to newspapers, and everyone must realise by now that the printed version of newspapers now has a limited time span and that online news is where we are all going. So where do the newspapers get their income from if no-one is paying and printed ads no longer appear? Solutions are already forthcoming - some papers like The Times charge for their content. Others are supported by on line advertising.

The TV industry has some big changes to think about and I believe their income in future is likely to come from advertising on their web sites, a small number of ads prior to programmes, placement advertising, targeted advertising, sponsorship of programmes, sales of content and so on.

I agree with you that lower income households will not be in a position to spend money on pay per view programmes - this is not the cheapest way of accessing content! However a Netflix subscription of £6.99 per month and a further outlay for the on demand websites operated by BBC, Channel 4 and 5 is not going to be any more than the existing TV licence, which is extortionate and resented by many.

once again, although I am wedded to the idea of video streaming as my preferred way of watching TV, I have no problem with the linear channels continuing as now. I just can't see that it will continue like this for much longer as people work out for themselves that there is a better way and technology continues to improve.

By the way, as far as broadband coverage is concerned, I heard on the radio today that Virgin Media have announced a major expansion covering three quarters of the country. This, together with the BT contract for extending super fast broadband across the country within five years, will overcome some of the issues preventing the withdrawal of linear channels by the next decade.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

How do you make a fee of around £12 a month extortionate considering the vast amount of content you get for that amount; TV, Radio and your favourite content delivery method; On Line.

Do you have the statistics to support this?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Looking at the tremendous waste that goes on at the BBC, of course it is extortionate.

I have not seen any surveys done on what people think of the TV licence, but quite a lot of correspondence on these forums and elsewhere testifies to the fact that a lot of people resent paying for it. I can understand why, particularly if you don't actually watch the BBC channels or listen to BBC radio.

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:17 ----------

Moving forward....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...V-service.html

Freeview is to undergo its biggest overhaul in a decade by launching a new service called Freeview Play, which will provide access to catch-up content from BBC iPlayer, ITV Player and 4OD.

The free service will allow thousands of British households to access on-demand services in their living rooms for the first time.

Freeview Play will be available on a range of new TVs and set-top boxes, and enabled with any existing broadband service. Viewers will be able to search for catch-up content by scrolling back in the TV guide or through apps.

The service will go head-to-head with YouView – the connected TV service launched in 2012 by the main TV broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5), together with BT, TalkTalk and Arqiva – which recently signed a deal to integrate with Sony TVs.

Freeview was launched in 2002 as a joint venture between the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, BSkyB and Arqiva, the telecoms group. It provides over 60 TV channels, up to 12 HD channels and over 25 radio stations and is subscription-free.

Freeview wants its new connected TV service to become the “new normal” way to watch TV.

Guy North, managing director of Freeview, said: “Freeview has been built on a vision to make television available to all free from subscription. In the same way that we took the UK from analogue to digital, Freeview Play is the next step in that vision and will put the viewer in control.

“We want to keep television fair and open for everyone. That means giving consumers the freedom to choose the TV they want, the way they want it.”

Last year, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 withdrew most of their financial support for YouView and agreed to spend more than £100m developing a new internet-connected version of Freeview, after it emerged that virtually all YouView households were pay-TV customers of BT or TalkTalk.

This was due in part to the £300 retail price of a YouView set-top, which meant that the service only became popular when the cost was subsidised by BT or TalkTalk and spread across the duration of a broadband contract.

The main goal of Freeview Play is to ensure that catch-up services such as the BBC iPlayer, ITV Player and 4OD are available in the living room to households that cannot afford or do not want a pay-TV package.

“The UK has a very proud heritage of making sure people have access to free television,” said Mr North. “We are aiming to do with Freeview Play what Freeview has always done, which is making technology available and affordable for a mass market.”

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

...And here is the Virgin Media story about extending their service beyond their existing boundaries by 2020.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...K-economy.html

Virgin Media has announced what it calls the largest investment into Britain's broadband infrastructure for more than a decade, creating 6,000 new jobs in an £8bn boost to the UK economy.

The internet provider will extend its network to approximately 4m additional homes and offices over the next five years as part of what it has called "Project Lightning," taking its coverage to nearly 17m premises by 2020.

Analysis undertaken by leading economic consultancy Oxera has found that this investment can be expected to spark £8bn of economic activity.

"I welcome this substantial investment from Virgin Media which is a vote of confidence in our long-term economic plan to support business and create jobs by building a superfast nation backed by world-class infrastructure," said the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

"These 6,000 new jobs and [1,000] apprenticeships will mean financial security and economic peace of mind for thousands more hardworking families across the country."

The media company has claimed that householders will benefit from broadband speeds of 152Mb, at least twice as fast as the fastest speeds available from rival media companies BT, TalkTalk and Sky.

The rollout is also expected to provide small businesses and people working from home with faster broadband.

“Millions of homes and businesses will soon be able to benefit for the first time from broadband speeds at least twice as fast as those available from the other major providers," said Tom Mockridge, chief executive, who joined Virgin Media last July from News International.


The race to sign up pay-TV and broadband customers intensified last year with the launch of BT's sports channels, which are free with the company's internet service, as well as the roll-out of fibre-optic cables, which offer much faster broadband speeds.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Waste is wrong. So you fix it. You don't, "Throw the baby out with the bath water"!

I believe the BBC is under such scrutiny these days that it is being addressed going forward.



Do you realise that a proportionately minuscule number of people read forums such as this and other online discussion outlets?

And generally only the people who are disgruntled with an established entity tend to post. The vast majority who are happy with the way things are, have no reason to go seeking online discussions. Therefore, forum opinion is weighted and of no use for determining the true national feeling on the BBC.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Many talk about on-line access as the way forward but what about those watching who are not on-line, they are in a caravan or tent with a small TV and a FreeView box? Maybe it's not many compared to the population of the UK but they still count.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Old Boy, I am sorry but I dropping out of this discussion. You appear to be disregarding very logical points (made mainly by others) and changing your ideas every time the points are made.

The license fee is in no way extortionate and (in my eyes) provides fantastic value for money. Just because a few people on here don't like it, does not make it wrong.

With regards to freeview, all that article says to me is that have finally caught up with all the other STB boxes out there by offering. This part of the statement seems to suggest they have no plans to do any of the things you think they will have to do, they are simply offering a catch up service, and still offer it subscription free.

Guy North, managing director of Freeview, said: “Freeview has been built on a vision to make television available to all free from subscription. In the same way that we took the UK from analogue to digital, Freeview Play is the next step in that vision and will put the viewer in control.

“We want to keep television fair and open for everyone. That means giving consumers the freedom to choose the TV they want, the way they want it.”

I could carry on, but I simply have lost the will with this discussion. People are still buying newspapers in a big way (come put the supplements in them at 6 am on a saturday morning to see how popular they still are), and they are still partly ad funded.

I have enjoyed this greatly, but I simply can not carry this on any more. You are right, things will change a little bit, but I think you are wrong about how much and how quickly things will change. Things work far too well now for things to change too much.

I welcome you response, but alas, I am out.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm sorry you are leaving this discussion, Harry, your contribution has been most welcome.

However, you say I've ignored some important points that others have made; I wasn't aware that I had done that. I do take your points that many people are satisfied with paying the TV licence and lots of people are still buying newspapers, etc.

However, the Government will be reviewing the licence fee in the near future, and there is a lot of speculation that it will be either reduced or abolished. Whatever we personally feel about it, the TV licence fee may be coming to the end of its days. Maybe it will get one final reprieve by the next Government, but I think they will have to bite the bullet sooner or later.

Printed newspapers, like it or not, are becoming increasingly difficult to justify when you look at the declining readership. I believe that most young people these days get their current affairs information on line, rather than through printed newspapers, and I think you will find that all the newspaper titles are preparing for a digital future. They will have to find innovative ways just to maintain existing levels of income, given that most of it comes from advertising.

The changes that are happening right now, such as the Freeview article explained, may seem innocent enough, but you have to face facts. More and more people are choosing to make use of on demand and streaming services and Freeview have just made this easier. There will come a point when on demand viewing is what most people do most of the time. Why would advertisers want to continue to put their money into advertisements on linear channels when an increasing majority of viewers are no longer viewing that way?

I don't think there is only one route to how we are going to get from where we are now to where we will end up, and I don't apologise for having different ideas on what may happen. The scenarios I have painted are often the result of particular questions that people have asked.

Obviously, I cannot foresee the future with any accuracy at all - nobody can - but when you look at what is happening all around you, some trends lead you to inevitable conclusions.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

Just as you can get access to the internet through your mobile phone, you will be able to stream videos while out in your caravan without thinking much of it in twenty year's time.

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

But we are paying for our TV now, Passingbat. If the licence fee is abolished, people can choose from other subscription offers that might be more relevant to their tastes.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

When are you going to provide evidence that the general public as a whole are dissatisfied with the value they get from the license fee? The government, no matter how Rupert centric they are, won't drastically alter BBC funding against public will.

It reminds me of your claims that Atlantic was coming to VM; despite many requests to supply evidence, you declined to do so.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I don't have to provide evidence. The Government is currently looking at whether or not to continue the existing TV licence fee system, you must have seen these reports, surely. It really doesn't matter whether the public are satisfied, what matters is the ideological view taken by the Government of the day.

I've explained on a number of occasions that it was my view that Sky Atlantic would be coming, based on media and other reports. Why did you think that I had some sort of insider knowledge? I don't work for VM or Sky!

If I was a bit overenthusiastic about that prospect, OK, I'll hold my hand up to that. But there were a number of things that were coming together and it was a reasonable expectation that maybe we were going to get a breakthough. Sadly, that didn't happen.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

What services do you think people can get for £12/pm?

And, don't forget, those without broadband will have to use some of that £12 to pay for broadband and they will have to pay for BBC radio and TV shows that they want to watch. Are you planning for that to be 'pay for each show' or a subscription to the BBC as a whole? Because the latter will wipe out a good chunk (if not all) of that £12, and paying per show works out really expensive.

As the American's say, have you done 'The math'?

---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:36 ----------

No, I thought you were living in OLDBOY wishful thinking land.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm projecting about 20 or so years into the future, Passingbat. Things will look different by then.

By the way, Netflix is only £6.99 per month, and look at the content on there.

I take your point that not everyone has broadband at present, and indeed there are many who cannot get it even if they want it because of where they live. However, I remember when neither we nor most of our friends had a telephone. Now just about everyone does. I think life without broadband will ultimately be unthinkable, even for those who cannot comprehend this digital revolution at the present time. Don't forget that those in their fifties now will be in their seventies in twenty years, so fewer people than ever will be confused by the digital services available.

As far as your question is concerned, it really isn't up to me, is it? As I said earlier, ITV are already revamping their model to recognise that it is no longer wise to rely on advertising income alone, although this will always be a part of the solution.

I don't see any substitute offer from the BBC being pay per view - I think it will be subscription based, although maybe they will offer some premium stuff on a PPV basis.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I thought it was 10?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Things will look a lot different by 2025, but the process won't be complete by then. I would think in 20 years, the number of linear channels will have diminished to a handful, if that. There simply won't be enough people watching in this way to sustain the advertising.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Time will tell, I remember "Tomorrows World" in the seventies, sadly not much came to fruition.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Ah, Tomorrow's World! I remember it well!!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Stuff Tomorrow's World being "wrong". I'm more disappointed we far away from the 2015 imagined in Back To The Future 2.:(:D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This is the latest on the BBC licence fee, confirming that its continuation is time limited, but that there may be a temporary reprieve. I think, however, this depends on what shape the next Government takes.

Although there are potentially different solutions to the replacement of the licence fee, I do believe that the preferred answer is likely to lie in a subscription based offer. Further savings would result from reducing or abolishing broadcast TV, in favour of VOD and streaming.

Interestingly, they are suggesting a possible levy payable by everyone to entitle them to receive any broadcast rather than a subscription. This will not satisfy those who resent paying the licence fee, which is why I think a Government of a certain complexion won't like that idea.

I know that withdrawing broadcast TV won't please everyone, but I am pretty sure this is the way we are going. The only question for me is how long it will take to get there. Notice that the Committee is talking also about a 10 year period, which I think is do-able if extended to withdrawing broadcast TV. However, my guess is that a 20 year period is more likely politically, given the need to win the public over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659

No long-term future for BBC licence fee, MPs say

The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said.

The fee is "becoming harder and harder to justify" given changes in the media, according to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead.

The BBC said it agreed the licence fee needed to be modernised.

The select committee's proposals were made in a new report about the future of the BBC.

Catch-up changes

Committee chairman John Whittingdale said: "In the short term, there appears to be no realistic alternative to the licence fee, but that model is becoming harder and harder to justify and sustain."

In light of changing technology and audience habits, the committee said "we do not see a long-term future for the licence fee in its current form".

Any "profound changes" - such as abolishing the licence fee - should not be rushed, the report said. But it did say the BBC "must prepare for the possibility of a change in the 2020s.

"We recommend that as a minimum the licence fee must be amended to cover catch-up television as soon as possible."

It should also no longer be a criminal offence to avoid paying the licence fee, the report said.

The planned BBC One +1 channel does not represent "public service value", the committee said.

The licence fee currently costs £145.50 per year for every household where people watch or record live TV.

A TV licence is not required to watch catch-up TV, using services such as the BBC iPlayer.

One option to replace the licence fee would be to make some BBC services available by subscription.

But the committee said choosing which programmes remained available subscription-free would require careful thought.

The best alternative to the licence fee, the report concluded, would be a compulsory broadcasting levy paid by all households, regardless of whether they watch TV, or how they watch.

The BBC's director of strategy James Purnell, said it was "a very serious and important report".

He said: "They are saying the licence fee should continue for the next years and think the BBC should continue for the next 10 years when its comes up for charter renewal after the election.

"We actually agree with them that the licence fee should be modernised. We have said this should extend to catch-up services, when people are watching catch-up for example on their tablets.

"They have come up with a more radical solution with a broadcast levy where every household would pay."

Such a system was introduced in Germany in 2013 and would do away with the need to detect and prosecute those who avoid buying a TV licence, the committee said.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So their solution to the BBC trying to tax every property is: Ta-da! A property tax. :rolleyes:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes! Well it is simple, just tack the charge on to the council tax!

Common sense points to a subscription based model that people can choose to sign up to but common sense does not always win the day, regrettably!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Maybe a small per property charge for the basic PSBR requirement ( Saturday evening ratings battles and deadenders Eastenders is not PSBR ) and radio with the rest of the froth subscription only.

To just charge everybody no matter how little the BBC output is relevent to them is still a non-starter in my view as it's no different to now.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The thing is, there is a very vocal minority that don't want to pay anything to the BBC because they don't watch or listen to their programmes. I think the Government need to listen to them.

Enabling the public to subscribe or not subscribe will probably result in most people signing up in the end, and all the stressing about BBC funding will be gone overnight.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think that's probably true though why they won't accept it is beyond me. Freeview boxes and TV's already have a conditional access card slot in them (CI) for adult channel and sports subscribers so even the hardware is there to implement it properly. $ky and VM already have things like a Disney add-on so having the BBC as an add on wouldn't be an issue either Then those that choose not to pay cannot get BBC content.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This really makes me laugh. The case put by many against the licence fee, is that they don't use any BBC services, so shouldn't have to pay. People who don't have equipment with tuners in currently can opt out.

This levy will force everyone to pay, whether they don't have tuners or don't use BBC services.


My general thoughts though; the BBC is one of the most respected broadcasters in the world at a bargain monthly fee, and a bunch of people, all of whom, can easily afford pay TV services want to mess with it. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't monitor BBC spending. Rupert must be doing a dance right now.

---------- Post added at 15:08 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------

And the key word here is minority.


BTW OB, when are you going to give us the statistics for those who object to the licence fee?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Seriously OB, I read this report as saying subscription based programmes will prove problematic and that the other option is to charge everyone in the country. They also say that a new levy may be introduced but will called something different. I seem to recall some tax in the 80s changing its name to council tax, and it not changing a thing, we still pay the same tax. So why should this be any different? Rest assured very little will change. Like PB says, the bbc will need to tighten their belts. I can see people paying a little less a year, but everyone in the country having to pay for it.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Including those that don't have a tv :rolleyes:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yup, charging everyone was one of the two options presented in the link OB posted. I imagine it is the easier of the two options. Unfair on those who don't watch TV, but where in life is anything truly fair?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm not in favour of a system whereby people who don't access BBC services have to pay for them. We have that now and it's manifestly unfair. I can't see the argument that £12 a month is a bargain, either, when it adds approx. 20% to my monthly telly bill, but accounts for considerably less than 20% of my viewing . But, if every household had to pay a levy this would surely mean a reduction in monthly outgoings for those households (the majority) who currently pay the licence fee, so I can see how this idea might gain traction.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That is exactly what will happen, not at the next charter review, but probably at the one after.

The theory is that TV has an important social function above and beyond the provision of entertainment. That is the justification for funding a large chunk of it via what is, effectively, a tax.

Throughout this thread you have argued that the Internet will result in the end of linear broadcast TV. I maintain that you are wrong; linear broadcast is simple for the provider and the consumer and remains the best means of attracting a mass audience.

What the Internet will do, however, is make it increasingly difficult for the BBC to continue to collect sufficient licence fees on the basis of charging people who watch TV as broadcast, not because too few people are watching linear broadcast, but because it is becoming too easy to evade detection. The only viable alternative, if the public service broadcast model is to be preserved, is for a precept on local tax. This is how police and fire authorities collect their funds.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There are two problems with the licence fee. One is the price of the TV licence, which many do think is too high given the waste that goes on at the BBC, and the other is who pays?

I don't think either of these questions will go away until they are dealt with properly. I agree that the temptation will be to go with the easiest options, but the longer this is put off, the angrier people will be.

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

You are quite right, PB, it is a minority. I'm afraid I don't have the figures, but we are reading about these protests all the time nowadays.

Frankly, they do have a point. The BBC collect more money than they know what to do with and the stories of profligacy are infuriating those who previously just put up with it. I agree that if you don't watch the BBC TV or radio programmes (even via the computer), then you shouldn't have to pay.

However, none of us I think want to see a reduction in programme quality. The BBC should be concentrating on that and not on emulating the commercial broadcasting channels.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

FWIW, I suspect that come the day the licence fee is swapped for a precept on council tax, a mechanism will also be introduced whereby any of the PSBs can bid for a portion of it. I'd go so far as to say that the BBC itself will lose the right to be the collecting authority and a third party, possibly Ofcom, will be the precepting authority, handing over (I speculate) 75% of what it collects to the BBC and inviting bids for the rest.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But Chris, we all rely on the police and fire authorities. We don't all watch or listen to BBC output, and so the licence fee or any kind of universal tax is manifestly unfair.

I do appreciate your doubts about my theory that linear channels are ultimately doomed. However, the industry itself is moving to VOD and streaming and there will come a tipping point where not enough people are watching the linear channels to support the existing model based on advertising.

While advertising will continue to play a part without the linear channels, it will be a much smaller part of a channel's income, and so there will be less duplication with a bigger focus on subscriptions.

You have mentioned the dreamy way in which some people watch TV now, by turning it on and just watching whatever is thrown at them. Convenient that may be, but it will not be sustainable financially to carry on broadcasting the same way if the advertisers are no longer willing to stump up. Just look at what is happening. The drift to alternative methods of watching programmes will continue, and at a faster pace, over the coming years.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm aware of the argument against the practice of treating public service broadcast as socially necessary, however that argument is normally - fallaciously - based on personal usage, rather than availability.

If you never have children, you will never make use of the schools you pay for. However there is a wider social need for schools, which benefits you indirectly. Likewise you pay for the fire authority not because you use it, but because one day you might do. It is, howevever, far more likely that you never will.

The BBC is a guarantor of breadth of programming, quality of programming, and universal availability of programming. You may never personally tune in to any of its services, but the very fact of its existence sets parameters for the UK TV industry, which you benefit from.

If you think this is nonsense, spend some time watching TV in the USA. What we get here is, I promise you, a highly distilled and very small sample of it's output, most of which is shockingly bad.

The industry is not moving to VOD and streaming. It, led in the UK by the BBC, is using those technologies to broaden its reach. It is not a case of either/or.

It's about time you produced some links to back up these assertions you keep making.

Back in the real world, 50% of British homes still, after all these years, do not pay anything for their home entertainment except for their TV licence.

If you have some evidence of a supposed shift in attitudes towards subscription-based TV, let's have it.

Dreamy? You really don't have much of a concept of life beyond your own living room, do you ...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Chris, you may wish to take a look at this, which appears to support my view in respect of linear channels.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/cable-sa...evision/224350

I do, however, agree with the point you make about quality of programming and your comparison with the United States. But whether this justifies making everyone pay for something they don't want, that is debatable.

I also agree that many people won't like a move to subscription tv, but there is no reason why they need to pay any more than they do now for the licence fee if this is abolished.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Give us the figures OB, and that will settle it.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

Spot on

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Could you please explain the costing's to support this claim?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I don't have the figures, PB. I'm a bit surprised that you are querying this though as there have been well publicised reports about this.

Conservative backbenchers are one example!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

IIRC the number who don't pay the TV licence is about 2.5 million.

As for streaming and catchup services:

Linky

Mind you that doesn't answer the question of how many would not pay if there was no compuction to do so.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Then Why on earth make the claim, which you have done more than once?

Are you so well off that it doesn't matter to you if it does work out more expensive?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I don't think we need to put full justifications to all our posts, supported by statistics and extensive research, PB, but as I like you, here's one set of data you might like to ponder. A Google search will provide so much more!

http://www.cityam.com/1404708698/mor...ee-be-scrapped

Just over half the public believes the TV licence fee should be scrapped and the BBC forced to find new ways to fund itself, according to a poll published yesterday.

The broadcaster should generate income from advertising rather than relying on taxes or higher licence fee funds, the findings suggest.

The ComRes survey of 2,049 people found that 51 per cent supported the idea of the BBC funding itself – even if that meant it became a more commercial organisation and ploughed less money into programming.

About one-third of those asked opposed this idea, while a further 15 per cent said they “don’t know”, according to the poll commissioned by the Whitehouse Consultancy.

The results, come as ministers and BBC executives prepare for the government’s review of the broadcaster’s charter in 2016.

Culture Secretary Sajid Javid indicated in May that he was prepared to be radical in reconsidering the BBC’s funding, telling the Telegraph that many families found the current £145.50 licence fee “a lot of money” to pay each year.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Of course you do if you make blanket assertions of the nature you have done regarding the BBC licence fee. (Oh how we miss Carl Waring at times like this ;))

Still, you have now done that. Well done.

Now all we need is your cost analysis to prove it won't cost anymore than it does now!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If as some maintain the BBC is so wonderful then the majority of the current license payers and probably a few who don't pay now but want to watch it will take out subscription and the revenue raised will not change much. However if the BBC isn't so wonderful....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think Stirling Castle is wonderful, but the only time I go is when Historic Scotland does its annual free access day. ;)

People's relationship with the things they enjoy is always complicated when they are presented with an explicit cost.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, people always love "Market Economics", unless, of course, a "torrent" is involved........ ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That article is based on what Netflix, a company arguably with a vested interest in ensuring that broadcast television ends, is saying..
Actually, I sort of agree with you. Regarding the value of the BBC, they do contribute a massive amount to the education of the country whether it is making programmes and websites to educate people or even running training courses to educate people hoping to enter the media industries.

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

It's likely that a lot of the commercial channels (possibly including ITV) will fold if this happens.

My proof? Simple economics. Supply Vs Demand. Advertising budgets are finite, and already stretched. As such, if supply goes up (as it would massively if the BBC started advertising), the price of space on the air would plummet marketwide. This would threaten commercial TV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Ofcom in 2010 found that of Sky's £20 base pack, only £3pm made its way to programming. The rest is spent on equipment, marketing, service charges and administration, etc. Making the TV licence optional will greatly increase its cost, or reduce the anount spent on programming, as the Sky example shows.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Which is why, in addition to a minimum £20 per month (the TV licence is a little over £12 a month), Sky customers have to sit through about 15 minutes of adverts per hour.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I will reply to your response a little later, when I have had something to eat and drink - just finished work.

Here is one opinion poll by one of the biggest in the land OB.

I hope it comes out correctly, am not on the laptop.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...px?keyword=BBC

Even if the license fee is abolished, people will still argue about the best way to fund it.

It should be left relatively unchanged. Yes, the price can be reduced, but it should not be abolished. This tax is no more unfair than any other tax we pay.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Some interesting reading material here about linear and VOD TV predictions.

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201412153...#axzz3T4AgokgX

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201412103...#axzz3T4AgokgX

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201412153...#axzz3T4AgokgX

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, thank you Richard. This really confirms what I have been thinking. The fast pace of change will lead to fewer people watching broadcast TV in favour of VOD and video streaming. Inevitably, this will lead to the demise of most linear channels because there will be insufficient income flowing from advertising as a result due to fewer people watching TV in the conventional way.

The big problem for broadcasters is how will the new model be funded, but they really should have thought about this before throwing in their lot with video on demand, which is where this all started!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's also a big problem with viewers, because if an appropriate funding model isn't realised, we end up with reality TV and shopping channels....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

....but the BBC has a massive income and what do we get night after night on its tv channels, soap and reality mostly. There used to be decent sitcoms and dramas on the beeb, but not anymore and yet the BBC still complain about the amount of money they receive.

What Netflix has shown is that if you can make the right show and distribute it as widely as possible, you can make money. And as I said earlier in the thread, one possible future may be a p2p solution for the funding of high quality tv shows centred around the writers and creators who make the stuff.

I will NEVER go back to aimlessly watching linear channels night after night unless there is a decent and broad selection of shows to watch.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm not sure that stands up to scrutiny. The BBC puts out a lot of original drama and comedy and, much as I dislike soap operas of all kinds, even I have to admit that 30 minutes of Eastenders most weeknights hardly qualifies as "mostly" what's on the BBC night after night. And which reality shows did you have in mind? IIRC the only show currently on the BBC that qualifies for that category is the daft zombie apocalypse gameshow currently running on Three.

---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 ----------

Tony Hall is expected to announc today that the BBC accepts the days of the licence fee are numbered, and things must change. There is therefore now a new thread specifically for comments about the BBC and its funding, available here:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/22...cence-fee.html

Please make comments about the licence fee in the new thread, and not here, as it will save me having to move or delete them. ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The BBC still do decent dramas (I like The Musketeers and Doctor Who for instance).. I don't think they do any decent sitcoms, but, tbh, I don't think any UK channel are doing decent sitcoms at the moment.

Regarding your statement about getting soap and reality night after night, the BBC don't actually have an reality shows (apart from The Voice and that zombie thing) on at the moment. Even looking at tonight's line up for BBC one, we have the National News, followed by the local news, then Inside Out (an investigative journalism program), then Eastenders. After EE, we have Panorama, followed by Crimewatch then the national and local news again. In fact, ignoring EE, the first non-factual programme on BBC one tonight is Waterloo Road, which starts at 5 to 11.

On BBC Two, we have mostly quiz programmes, apart from Top Gear, A Cook Abroad and Lets play darts for comic relief.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree with your last two paragraphs.

I do think that when the linear channels are eventually withdrawn, we will be paying for the BBC on a subscription basis (which will be rather less than the existing licence fee) and instead of buying in programmes from abroad, the library of programmes will all be from the BBC's own productions. Money will be saved from not buying in programmes from elsewhere and not having to maintain all those TV channels.

Whether the BBC has a joint platform with the likes of ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 remains to be seen, but it would make economic sense.

Although it looks as if we have a huge number of channels available to us via broadcast TV, it must be borne in mind that the majority of programmes are repeats, with not a great deal of original material.

In future, I believe that we will have a vast choice of previously broadcast material at our fingertips, plus the new stuff. How much that will cost, I don't know, but the competition between providers should bring the price down. If it costs £6.99 per month per provider (as is currently the case with Netflix), this would give us quite a good choice and will probably save pay tv subscribers quite a lot of money as we won't be paying for unwanted bundled channels.

Those who cannot afford to pay much should be able to get access to the current terrestrial channels at no extra cost (but by subscription rather than the licence fee).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

We can all pick and choose a particular day or schedule to advance our arguments. But I don't think what anyone could argue against is that across the main broadcast channels (as talk specifically on the BBC has been prohibited) the schedules are dominated by soaps, chefs, antiques, following the police/ambulance/council workers etc which are all reality type shows, quizes, house buying/makeover and many other kinds of reality shows.

I happen to like quizzes, I used to like soaps, I dislike the chefs and antiques (which are also reality-ish shows), but quite like many of the other type reality shows on. I am not against these shows, I am against the quantity of them on especially on the five main channels that have a legal remit to show a variety of programmes suitable for as wider audience as possible.

A broadcaster is meant to be just that - broad, something for everyone but their evening schedules on most days (again, we can all pick and choose a particular timeframe to advance our arguments) are saturated with these shows at the expense of decent dramas and comedies with should be the backbone of an evening schedule.

On Netflix at 9pm, or 9.03pm, or 10.02pm, I can watch a decent drama and at the exact time I want to. I am not saying linear tv will die off completely, but it will diminish and in the case of both funding methods of the five main channels, their existence will come under ever increasing pressure.

And by the way, I don't think Netflix will survive another ten years, but that's a whole different thing altogether!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There is no prohibition on discussing the BBC. What there is, is a request to discuss the specific issue of the future of the TV licence, in a new thread.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

One simple answer, its cheap TV, there isn't the money from advertisers to fill the schedule with high quality programming 24/7. Think of the big advertisers that have gone. If you want quality TV programmes then the funding has to come from elsewhere, the cash cow of advertisers has had its day, they are too thinly spread over multiple channels

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There was a lot of discussion in the former cablecos about VOD (video on demand) and how it should be integrated into normal tv and this was long before streaming services such as Netflix came along.

One idea that NTL (I think it was them) was looking at was to have VOD channels next to their linear channels on the EPG. We see a little bit of that today with VM's VOD channels at the start of the music section, but it was originally going to be far more widespread.

The feeling was that the linear channels would be almost like shop windows into the various programmes, but you would then access the VOD channel for the main bulk of your tv viewing. So, the EPG might have looked something like this:

CH 101 - BBC 1 - linear tv channel
CH 102 - BBC 2 - linear tv channel
CH 103 - BBC VOD - gateway to access more BBC shows
CH 104 - ITV 1 - linear tv channel
CH 105 - ITV VOD - gateway to access more ITV shows
CH 106 - Channel 4 - linear tv channel
CH 107 - CH4 VOD - gateway to access more Ch4 shows
CH 108 - Channel 5 - linear tv channel
CH 109 - CH5 VOD - gateway to access more Ch5 shows

The feeling was that you wouldn't have all the BBC/ITV/CH4 & 5 offshoot channels because you could access the vast vault of shows available from the main broadcasters on VOD.

I've no idea what happened to that idea, clearly it was dropped and I think the BBC already had iplayer by then in any case.

I suspect the broadcasters, especially the commercial ones, disliked the idea of their main advertising funded channels being relegated to nothing more than shop windows in favour of their shows being nothing more than a commodity that is stored on the cable companies servers. But today we still have the traditional VOD service and offshoot channels littering the EPG, so we have the "best" of both worlds...

I agree with you about all the repeats on the channels, so although it seems like we're getting massive choice, we are not. Case in point:

NCIS/Law & Order/CSI and their offshoot shows at any one time are shown on several channels at the SAME time. That is not choice and it excludes all the +1 and HD channels too. Take a look, you'll find these shows on the following channels:

CH 5
Sky One
Sky Living
Fox
Universal
5 USA

Add in the the +1s and HD, and on some evenings these shows can be on a dozen or more channels all at the same time!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201503053...#axzz3TW3MyQgB

This article predicts a rise in mobile video in the next ten years.

Whilst I suppose that technically it is, do people generally regard mobile video as VOD or as something separate?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Another indication of the likely demise of linear channels over time is contained in this article I have discovered in the Daily Telegraph web site.

Although the Telegraph article below describes the position in the US, it is a foregone conclusion that we will follow their lead. The trend is towards more streaming services and a continuing drift away from linear channels. Although this will impact on pay tv first of all, it is only a matter of time before Freeview itself is impacted by this change in viewing habits and the declining advertising revenue that results.

Vote now in Muppetman's poll to indicate your opinion!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...g-service.html

Apple 'planning TV streaming service'
Apple could launch a TV streaming service, in partnership with US broadcasters such as ABC, CBS and Fox

Apple is reportedly planning to launch an online TV service, allowing users to stream video content from around 25 channels on their iPhones, iPads and Apple TV set-top boxes.

The technology giant is in talks with US broadcasters such as ABC, CBS and Fox to launch the service. The idea is to offer a “skinny” bundle with popular channels like CBS, ESPN and FX, while leaving out many of the less well-known networks that are included in standard cable TV packages.

For now, the talks don’t involve NBCUniversal, because of a falling-out between Apple and NBCUniversal parent company Comcast, according to the Wall Street Journal.

It is thought that Apple's online TV service will be accessed via a subscription, costing between $30 and $40 per month. The new service could be announced in June and launched in September. Apple refused to comment on the report.

The move comes amid a major shift in TV viewing habits, with many people now foregoing cable and satellite pay-TV services in favour of online streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video.

Only yesterday it was reported that YouTube is planning to launch a subscription-based video-on-demand service that will allow users to watch unlimited videos without ads for a set monthly fee.

Meanwhile, Apple announced last week that it had secured exclusive early access to the forthcoming HBO Now streaming service, allowing Apple device owners to watch popular series such as Game of Thrones.

"Tim Cook’s HBO announcement should have been a heads up on Apple’s latest thinking around TV services. The company has been trying for years to get into the streaming TV market, and cash in on the demand from users for TV from their internet connection," said Jeremy Davies, CEO and co-founder at analyst firm Context.

"This latest attempt reportedly has the backing from several major US channels, but Apple’s goal of a live TV streaming service with a vast cloud-based on-demand library could still run into problems in trying to get the rights to all the shows it needs."

There is no indication of whether Apple would launch an online TV service outside of the US. However, this would require Apple to make licensing deals with local broadcasters, meaning there would likely be a significant delay before the service reached the UK.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

All that Apple is doing is allowing people to watch linear TV on their tablets and mobile phones. This positively benefits live channels.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'd say possibly more damaging to pay TV platforms as this offers key channels for a low monthly subscription it also brings people into the apple ecosystem.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It looks like an online streaming service but it doesn't make clear whether or not advertisements are included. The fact that it is accessed by subscription indicates to me that advertisements are not included, but I will see if more information about this service becomes available.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:20 ----------

I have followed this up and I think I now understand what is proposed.

This report from the Mail website from July 2013 (reproduced in part below) indicates a possible means of reprieve for the linear TV channels.

If broadcast channels are compensated for revenue lost by the streaming companies, this might be the lifeline they need.

However, you have to wonder whether this arrangement would survive the test of time if most people watched their TV through streaming services. Why would these streaming companies wish to continue with such an arrangement when a minority watch the linear channels in the conventional way?

Still, a rosier picture than I thought possible before I read this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rs-finger.html

Apple's new TV set 'will have NO adverts and could be controlled by remote control ring worn on a viewer's finger'
Apple said to be in talks with broadcasters about an advert-free TV model
Adverts could be skipped at the press of a button on recorded shows
Rumours also suggest the 60-inch screen could be controlled by a ring
By VICTORIA WOOLLASTON

PUBLISHED: 17:13, 17 July 2013 | UPDATED: 08:09, 18 July 2013


Apple is said to be looking at ways to remove adverts from its rumoured TV set in a bid to boost sales if and when the device launches later this year.

The company has reportedly spoken with broadcasters about the deal and is even thought to have offered to compensate them for any revenue they lose as a result.

Other rumours claim the TV set could be controlled using a ring worn on a viewer's finger.

Apple already offers TV shows and films through its Apple TV box, but the company is also rumoured to be working on a TV set with a 60-inch screen that could potentially let viewers skip adverts on recorded shows

Apple already offers TV shows and films through its Apple TV box, but the company is also rumoured to be working on a TV set with a 60-inch screen that could potentially let viewers skip adverts on recorded shows.

U.S media is reporting that Apple wants viewers of its TV set to be able to skip through all adverts at the press of a single button when watching on-demand shows.

It would be a slight difference to the current model seen on set-top boxes, such as Virgin's TiVo, that lets users fast-forward though advertising on recorded programs.

However, sources claim the service would not be used with live television.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Further evidence of the shift in TV viewing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-industry.html

'While around two thirds of the total video market’s £2.24bn in annual revenues still come from owning physical discs, income from this area dropped 6.5pc in 2013 while digital video-on-demand grew 45pc, boosted by a 77pc jump in subscription services.

Video could soon be digitally dominant if it continues to follow the trajectory carved out by the music industry, which saw digital account for half of all music sales - totalling £513m - for the first time in 2014 as the physical music sector fell to less than half its value in 2008.'

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Errr .... No .... That's evidence of the shift in *video* viewing, as the article you linked to clearly states.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not sure I quite understand your comment, Chris. I'm referring to the shift from viewing linear channels to alternative means of viewing, such as video on demand, video streaming, etc.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the whole point of this thread is to look at whether this shift in viewing patterns will reduce income from advertising on broadcast TV which will then undermine the whole platform, leading to a sharp diminution or extinction of linear channels.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I know what the topic is. It seems perhaps that you don't. Or at least, you don't understand that a drop in ownership of video on disc, coupled with a rise in streaming video over the internet, has precisely nothing to do with the future of linear TV broadcasts.

It does have something to do with the future of DVD sales and rentals. That, however, is not the topic here.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OK, I see now the point that you are making.

However, I don't think that you would deny that video streaming is becoming increasingly popular, and that this is and will continue to impact on viewing figures for broadcast TV.

I accept that the article is not, however, a comparison with broadcast television viewing habits.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Anything that you can do in your living room of an evening, that is not watching linear broadcast TV, will inevitably have an impact on the overall viewing figures of linear TV channels. But you haven't been arguing simply that broadcast viewing figures will take a hit - your hypothesis here is that VOD will at some point overtake linear to the point that linear, over-the-air broadcast will end.

Many, many reasons have been provided in this thread why that will not happen any time in the foreseeable future.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, this is what I have been arguing and other media reports support that analysis.

I am certainly not arguing that this will happen overnight, and as has been pointed out, TV advertising revenues are increasing at the moment. I am just saying that in the long term, this trend will reverse sharply.

Of course, the TV broadcasters could find various ways of pre-empting this scenario, but if they do not adapt, they will, unfortunately, die.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

People will watch what they want when they want now that the technology allows this, the days of having to sit down at a scheduled airing time of a TV show are long gone imo, I pretty much agree with OB with regards to linear broadcasts, although it wont happen overnight.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree it will increase but as existing channels provide on-demand services I don't see it being a threat to linear channels who are busily adapting accordingly. Channel 4's forthcoming All4 service is a good example of this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29154860

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This report says that, despite the interest from some consumers, there is minimal interest in cord cutting:

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201503193...#axzz3UqRKPbLy

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That article makes a good point - pay-TV is bought for a household and a single package from say HBO won't cover a household's needs. I think there's also another reason in the US - the best broadband services come bundled with cable and are priced to discourage just broadband-only purchases. Competitors to cable companies just offer poor ADSL services unless you're in a Google-cabled area or your state has invested in its own fibre network.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I suspect that a lot of cord cutters are single households. They probably won't be interested in some genresveg the childrens channels and don't have to consider the desired viewing of others.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Decline of traditional broadcasting much exaggerated, according to Andrew Neil.

An interesting read

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/33807...ted-says-neil/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

He makes much of the fact that viewing on tablets, laptops and smartphones accounts for 2% of viewing, but the telling figures are to be found further in the article:

Sky is seeing a 40% rise in on-demand viewing every year and is moving to become a quad-play provider through its deal with O2.”

Once again, the focus in this article is on the present rather than the future. New ideas often take some time to catch on, but I think the trend away from linear channels is already beginning.

Of course it is always possible that Channel 4's approach of blurring the lines between the different types of viewing with All 4, and new innovative ways of keeping advertising rates up may yet save the day. But will people really still be watching TV the old fashioned way in a decade or two's time? I have serious doubts!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I must admit I watch most of my tv programs either recorded or on demand for two reasons. 1)because I work night shifts and 2)to avoid the adverts,although more and more on demand programs have adverts before or in the middle of them. I still watch live channels though especially football matches.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Same here but all mine is done online.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Being 3 of in my house an different tastes we often get clashes, so we normally record non BBC channels so we can cut the adverts.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think the loss of advertising impact due to time shifting may be overstated somewhat. My kids have films going back nearly 4 years on our box, most of which are recorded off ITV2 on a Sunday afternoon. They jump through the commercial breaks but they still see a flash of each one, and by now they can recite each brand or product in order, in every break. In fact they ae pretty well brainwashed. And when they grow up I doubt they will ever phone anywhere other than 118 118 for directory enquiries. :erm:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There appears to be a growing acceptance that linear channels have commenced their long downward path.

http://www.rethinkresearch.biz/artic...-habits-shift/

Survey shows linear TV’s hold is slipping as viewing habits shift

Extract

A constant trickle of survey results and reports is painting a clear, if unsurprising, picture of the slow demise of traditional linear viewing on televisions. Mobiles, tablets and OTT net tops are stealing market share from set tops and aerials, and the value placed in the exclusivity that content used to enjoy on TV is being eroded by OTT libraries, with the possible exception of Live Sports (see article on Sky this week).

Time-shifted viewing, in particular VoD catch-up, has also diminished the perceived value of prime-time content – so why rush home to watch the latest episode of something you can watch at any time after your chores are complete? Only live content can still command a premium, but for those paying for the privilege of watching (usually sports), there is an increasing consumer expectation that they can watch on any device and not just the TV at home.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Good find OB....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Nobody looks harder than someone who wants to find evidence for something he already believes in ... ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

True, but I am open to news that the linear channels will be saved as well!