Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35291353)

Linear broadcast TV creates the market for VOD services.

In a commercial environment, either subscriptions, or advertising, or both, pays for the content to be created. The subscription/advertising money is only available because the linear distribution model guarantees a sufficiently large audience. Having created the content in the first place, the linear broadcasts also act as a massive advertisement for the existence of that same content on VOd services.

Do not underestimate the passivity of a British TV audience at 8 or 9 pm on a weekday evening. The overwhelming majority of us still pick from the choices that involve least effort, namely the linear terrestrial public service channels. This is the case across all homes, even those that have access to subscription and VOD services.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35291624)

To me the cost of the pay tv is far to expensive, what we have to have is several companies that do the same product.

At the moment l pay nearly £80.00 per month for Sky and £65.00 for VM, there other options but the services they provide are not good.

In this climate at the moment Sky have frozen there prices till 2012, but that l think is because people would move to VM. When you think that purses are now being tightened l feel that the future of pay tv is poor, as people no longer have the money.

You have to be competitive, but l think Sky are wiping the door, and there are no plans to revise pricing. At the moment we have Freesat, Freeview, BT Vision and a new one soon Real Digital, but in about two years who will still be around, that's anyone's guess.

Originally Posted by HDFootyMan (Post 35291599)

There will always be room for linear TV, especially for 'event' TV such as major sports games, royal weddings and dare I say it, X-Factor.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35291701)

The trouble is, only around half of the country has been cabled.