Re: The future of television
 

Gladly.

In your “content aggregator” hypothesis you propose that streamers should be made available on platforms such as Sky/Virgin.

Such wholesale deals need to be finely balanced - a customer who leaves your service as a direct subscriber to become an indirect subscriber via a wholesale arrangement means less revenue for you.

E.g. a BT Sport subscriber who joins Virgin to get BT Sports reflects a substantial revenue drop compared to a direct BT subscriber. This needs to be finely balanced.

Sky’s own accounts. And Virgin’s.

Both have in the past included what their expenses are to third party content providers. That amount, averaged over the subscriber base and the number of third parties, leads to the obvious conclusion that they are only paying pennies per month.

Indeed, if one casts our minds back to the Sky Basics dispute this was over Sky wanting something in the region of 90 pence per subscriber per month for the most popular channels on pay television.

If you think there’s a magical pot of money out there where Sky/Virgin are in a position to pay every fledgeling streaming service pounds per month then you are very well mistaken. If that money comes from anywhere it will be the end user.

I’d contest that it’s not only possible but extremely likely. This content isn’t new or magical, it’s simply television distributed across another means. There’s no incentive for Sky/Virgin to encourage further dilution of their own content by propping up all of these streamers.

Would it be affordable or cheaper than traditional pay-tv services? Who is getting squeezed because all of their direct to customer offerings are significantly more expensive than people are paying for their TV package to Sky or Virgin.

Re: The future of television
 

I think the future savings may come by getting rid of satellite/box installations and more expensive boxes that record. But that still won't account for the difference between £1 per subscriber that Sky probably gets from VM for its entertainment channels and the £10 (albeit often less) it gets for its entertainment channels when sold directly under its Now brand.

Re: The future of television
 

Why the obsession with pay channels disappearing?

It's as if you are in a race and see only that as the finish line. But to get there everyone has to be running towards the same finish line. Some people may be running alongside you but you will also find people running in the opposite direction, maybe they tried streaming services and weren't happy with the experience. Others will be on the sidelines, enjoying a mixed diet of streamed and scheduled content. Yet more will be anchored to the spot, as determined to stay with scheduled pay-TV as you are to see it end.

Re: The future of television
 

1000 customers subscribe direct from Netflix at £11.99 per customer, Netflix get £11,990.00 per month; 1500 customers subscribe, through Sky, to Netflix at £9.99 per month, of which Netflix get £6.99, Netflix get £10,498.50 per month.

(subscription amounts for illustrative purposes only).

Re: The future of television
 

I’m not ‘obsessed’ with it, but if we have access to all the main streamers through our boxes, why would we pay for the same content on pay tv channels?

If we had both, it would be far too expensive for most, and pointless, what is more.

Re: The future of television
 

A statement you’ve been invited to evidence on numerous occasions yet to date never taken the opportunity to do so. Your clear obsession with this subject won’t make this happen all by itself.

Right now linear ensures quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition. Something not achievable by streaming in a uniform way as broadcast television does.

Re: The future of television
 

Good points , I can see the satellite platform hemorrhaging customers especially with every additional bit of content it loses going forward. I have lots and lots of friends and colleagues who have already cancelled their Sky subscriptions with many moving to Freeview/Freesat complemented by Now for Sport and streaming apps.

I can see Sky going over to IPTV with a box sent out in the post and installed by the customer , Now pretty much does this already but at some point I see the two meeting in the middle.

The extra money Sky saves on third party content will be invested into its own content with content from the NBCUniversal stable also.

Linear will still be very much part of its offering specifically for Sport and News.

Re: The future of television
 

So don't buy them twice. You wouldn't buy your eggs from Asda and then go to Tesco to buy them again. Make a choice. Eventually you will choose the streamers but other viewers will choose scheduled content.

Happy days for everyone.

Re: The future of television
 

Or scheduled content with an on demand catalogue as now. Satisfying everyone who, unlike Old Boy, are agnostic about the whole thing.

His desperation for the end of television, whether he watches it or not, is completely irrational.

Re: The future of television
 

What point are you making here? Is it not self evident that if we are paying for pay-tv channels as well as streaming services, it will be more expensive than if we just had a bouquet of streamers providing the same content?

Yes, it is true that TV channels provide a service that some are perfectly happy with, but people are not going to pay twice for the same content, are they? Even if they are obsessed with channel numbers and advertisement breaks.

I’m not sure either what you are getting at in inferring that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. There is far more content in UHD on the streamers, and nothing in SD.

So your assertion that this is not achievable by streaming is palpable nonsense.

Perhaps you should clarify yourself.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:34 ----------

No, quite clearly you wouldn’t, and that is my point. If your satellite or cable subscription gave you a package of streamers with all that content that gives you almost unlimited choice, why would you want to pay for TV channels as well?

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------

I agree with all of that, except your last sentence. Why pay twice for the same content?

Re: The future of television
 

You don't expect Sport and News to be consumed live :confused:

Re: The future of television
 

Well, no.

The more content splinters, and the greater demand for limited content becomes, drives up prices.

I see DAZN have trebled their prices in Italy following acquisition of Serie A rights.

Why would they pay twice? As far as I can tell all the linear channels of any note have a streaming presence. They’re not mutually exclusive in the way you seem to portray.

Not for end users without internet or with slow speeds it isn’t.

For someone who objects to the Now TV boost I think you’ll find many more object to having to pay ever increasing amounts for a quality internet service just to receive television.

Palpable nonsense? See above.

Because the average user isn’t dogmatic like you are OB. They’ll watch linear when it suits, record when it suits, and stream when it suits (if of course their internet is up to it).

As you’ve been unable to quantify the cost of maintaining a linear presence in addition to streaming for existing linear channels - essentially the status quo - it’s clearly palpable nonsense that users are paying twice for the same content.

Re: The future of television
 

Who said that? Of course we will always have programmes to watch that are live. But live tv doesn’t have to be consumed on a conventional channel.

As I have said before, you can watch live tv on the BBC I-player.

Re: The future of television
 

No he just expects it to be more convenient to access it through the jumble sale that is a streamers menu. Which brings us to if you can’t remember who is broadcasting a game having to access multiple different apps just to check.

Or buy a TV guide - how quaint - just to know who is showing what.

Re: The future of television
 

As I said, not everyone is in the same race as you, heading for a common finish line. Those viewers determined to stay with scheduled pay-TV will have no reason to switch to these larger bundles, which you seem to desire, packaging the streamers. If they don't like the experience of searching for content on the streaming apps, they won't be be paying more to add the streamers to their TV bundle.