Re: The future of television
 

Because on a streaming service (which is where we will be in the future), there is no point in separating out content by channels. Categories, latest releases and so forth, yes, but not channels, which on a streaming service are pointless.

The popularity of linear TV may be present now, as I keep saying, but habits will change over time.

Re: The future of television
 

Still at a loss as to where such a step ceases to be financially viable and what pushes consumer behaviour over the line.

13 million people OB. A tenth of that isn't an inconsiderable audience to fight over.

Re: The future of television
 

Apparently, it’s possible for both streaming and Linear to grow - it’s not a zero-sum game…

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2021...6-34s-tune-in/

Re: The future of television
 

So maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but if the BBC does as you predict and at some point in the future says bugger it and just has iPlayer what will happen for example to new episodes of EastEnders? Will they just add them as and when in some random fashion or to keep viewers happy will they add an episode every Tuesday at 7:30pm? I would wager there will be some sort of expected day/time for new episode releases which then surely makes it a linear channel doesn't it? Or am I missing something :confused:

Re: The future of television
 

No, it doesn't. Airing new episodes weekly already happens for some programmes on Netflix, Amazon and Disney + for example. The programme simply appears on the designated day. You don't need a traditional linear channel to do that.

Re: The future of television
 

Did it never occur to you that the weekly “drop” of premium content on streaming platforms is their attempt to address an inherent weakness of their distribution method - that it lacks the ability to get large numbers of people discussing their content on social media simultaneously, or at the “water cooler” next day?

For Netflix, which doesn’t have a linear channel, this is the closest they can get to one. Linear channels have that advantage.

Re: The future of television
 

It’s hardly a weakness. The streaming services have always designated a date on which to launch new content.

So on the contrary, it is a strength. If certain content is best released weekly or on certain days of the week (or even a certain time on a designated day) then that’s what they do. And the audience can view it either straight away or at any time at their convenience.

Re: The future of television
 

Doesn't this happen at the moment with many programmes? Watch them on the relevant linear channel at the appointed hour or watch them on the on-demand section at the appointed hour. Most people chose the linear channel as it's easier.

Re: The future of television
 

You are wrong. Most streamed content drops all at once, as a series. A limited number of high-profile, big budget series drop one episode per week.

These are the same sorts of shows that would ‘drop’ weekly in a prime evening slot on broadcast TV. That they reserve some of their premium content for weekly release undermines your argument that streaming, and giving viewers limitless choice and absolute control at all times, is inherently better. In terms of justifying investment in the most expensive programmes, there is a clear need to get a critical mass of simultaneous, or near-simultaneous, viewing, so that word of mouth works to maximum effect to increase ratings.

This is something broadcast TV achieves simply by its nature. It is something a streaming service tries to approximate by undermining the very thing you have always claimed is its principal benefit.

Re: The future of television
 

It’s entirely a weakness. A streaming service can never achieve the levels of social media engagement a linear channel has because it defines exactly when a substantial proportion of viewers will watch.

The best bit, of course, is a linear channel additionally makes the content available on demand. Therefore catering for everyone.

Re: The future of television
 

Well, what if it is streamed weekly on a limited basis? The point I was making was that it is possible to do, if this was seen as the best way.

Incidentally, you may have noticed that the linear TV channels have been airing some things back to back in recent times. Obviously imitating an advantage that streaming has, except that you cannot watch at a time of your choosing unless you record the whole lot.

Streaming is far more flexible - you can binge watch or watch weekly and when you want. It requires a contortionist to try to advance an argument that linear TV is better than this.

However, I can see that some of you on this forum will resist the changes that are to come until they actually come. So enjoy it while it lasts.

Re: The future of television
 

No one is arguing that "linear TV is better than this" - you appear to be putting words in people’s mouths…

What people are saying is that both ways have their strengths and attractions, which is why we believe that in the future (beyond 2035) both will still be in use.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m resisting the future by subscribing to three streaming services. :D

Once again OB is conflating personal preferences with observations on the market as a whole.

Re: The future of television
 

Resistance is futile - you will be astreamallated… :D

(MeThree - Disney+, Amazon Prime, and Netflix)

I have a car, but I also walk to our local shops/restaurants, and cycle occasionally - why am I not just using the car?

Re: The future of television
 

There must be bigger things in your life to get stressed about on whether the future of tv is streaming/linear?

I'd worry more about Wokingham Town Fc . Are you a 442 stalwart or pack the midfield 3, 5, 2? It's a dilemma ... ;)

Re: The future of television
 

But that's linear isn't it? Tuesday at 7:30pm would still be 'Eastenders time'. I think you maybe should share with us your definitions of what is a linear channel and what is a streamer so those of us who dip in and out for the latest episode of the Old Boy & Jfman soap have some terms of reference. Thinking about it, you two arguing with predictable regularity could almost be described as a linear media offering ;).

Re: The future of television
 

We don't do definitions in this thread, Grim. :D

Re: The future of television
 

Here you go - from the previous "Re:Linear is old tech - on demand is the future" thread (01-12-2020 19:31)

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1615

Re: The future of television
 

Will me, just think if got clear definitions it would save all that head scratching (see my reply to Hugh below).

Oh. If that makes EastEnders live TV, what does it make the sporting events like the FA cup or Olympics, or do we risk just covering well trodden ground again?

Re: The future of television
 

Who says it has to start at 7.30? It could be uploaded at midnight. Whatever time it’s uploaded doesn’t make it linear. Once uploaded, it is not only there for the duration of the programme. It remains on thereto be accessed on demand.

I don’t care what you choose to call it, to be honest. It’s not me getting hung up on the technical terms.

Re: The future of television
 

Why change the habit of a lifetime.

Re: The future of television
 

It doesn't have to start at 7:30 but if they just uploaded new episodes at random times they'd soon start getting complaints which would result in them setting an upload time. And why shouldn't it be 7:30, after all I'm pretty sure the BBC have a good idea of what works for a particular show and what doesn't.

I'm still confused when something is linear (scheduled) and when something isn't.

Re: The future of television
 

It could be uploaded at 7.30, midnight or any time they chose. I agree that whatever time they picked, it would need to be consistent.

Re: The future of television
 

Paul quoted Google about this last month

Re: The future of television
 

So released to a schedule, aka linear??

Re: The future of television
 

Internet providers aren't going to be happy with peak time releases into the system. You just have to look at the significant impact games console releases have on internet traffic.

If a broadcaster really wants to stick to a rigid timing then almost certainly the easiest way to do that is linear.

Re: The future of television
 

And for the foreseeable future, the easiest way to deliver linear TV is over-the-air broadcasting. We are still decades away from universal availability of high capacity data networks, not to mention the electricity generation capacity required to run them. In fact, until our power grid is entirely carbon neutral it would be quite irresponsible to needlessly increase power demand in such a way.

Re: The future of television
 

Part of the reason this conversation goes round in circles is OB fails to tell us in whose interests linear ends?

To the end user right now there’s never been more choice. Even on Sky/Virgin there’s a huge amount of catch up and on demand they can choose to watch at present. So what’s the net benefit?

To the broadcaster they need to be 100% certain that they carry the viewer into the all streaming world and not that they get lost at the bottom of a menu, or in a difficult to navigate app.

Until then they will be happy to retain linear while using it as a mechanism to promote their own streaming offer.

Re: The future of television
 

Part of the problem is that OB is completely blinkered as to the “in whose interests?” question. Anyone familiar with the origins of this long-running forum discussion may remember that the root of it is:

1. OB really, really, likes streaming TV
and
2. OB is one of those people who has a very hard time accommodating preferences that differ from his.

Hence his occasional intemperate use of terms like “Neanderthal” in describing the millions of people who chose to watch Call of Duty as broadcast last week.

Re: The future of television
 

The only interests served by linear TV ending are Old Boy's as his prediction becomes true.

For viewers, broadband providers and broadcasters, the co-existence and blending of the two methods is an optimum state of affairs.

Re: The future of television
 

Hmmm, are you sure about this?

OB certainly introduced the term “Neanderthals” to the thread but from what I can see it’s jfman that keeps linking the term with the broadcast of LoD.

Re: The future of television
 

I use the term ironically. As one of the 13 million Neanderthals who watched it as broadcast.

I respect everyone's viewing habits and rationale for doing so. Cost, convenience, who am I to judge?

OB introduced it as a term for those who still watch linear.

Re: The future of television
 

What is it with the crap being vomited onto our screens


I mean coming soon The Masked Dancer, FFS please stop putting this crap out.


Its becoming so Americanised with all the stupid screaming that noise-cancelling headphone struggle with

Re: The future of television
 

People want quantity not quality these days. That is the future of tv.

Try BBC4 instead.

Re: The future of television
 

It's incredibly popular light entertainment which taps into the public mood after what the nation has endured in the last 15 months. If you want more serious stuff, it's just a few clicks away too.

That's the beauty of living in a multi-channel, on-demand world. You can watch what you want, when you want it and on the device you want to watch it on. You're not tied down to just what's currently being shown on five channels in the living room.

The future is here and I for one love it!

Re: The future of television
 

Welcome to the Matrix :p:

Re: The future of television
 

What, like the weekly episodes of some new series on Netflix, you mean?

No, that’s not linear but hey, if that’s what you want to call it, that’s OK by me. :D

Re: The future of television
 

Streaming latency to be reduced to 10 seconds.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2021...aming-latency/

Re: The future of television
 

Reducing latency to as near zero as possible is the holy grail of IP delivered TV. The problem is that live TV pictures have to be compressed prior to transmission. The time required to compress the image causes the latency. If you’re broadcasting live via Facebook (which our church has been doing every Sunday during lockdown) the Facebook live broadcast service allows you to select how much latency you want to tolerate. They advise you to go for a higher figure unless you need near-real-time responses from your viewers. If you opt for a lower figure, the trade off is reduced video quality. Obviously that’s not acceptable for premium live sports where they want to have their cake and eat it. I believe the BBC has been working on its own proprietary technology in this area as well.

Re: The future of television
 

Good stuff.

Re: The future of television
 

LOL, what have you been taking. :erm:

Its cheap garbage, right [down] there with all the other "Reality" TV.

(Which has very little to do with actual Reality)

Watching it is an 'Endurance' all of its own.

Re: The future of television
 

Ha ha. Certainly not my cup of tea either but i must respect others' tastes, however poor! :D

Re: The future of television
 

An interesting read here about the way in which 5G will improve video quality, reduce latency, etc.

https://www.tvbeurope.com/media-deli...d-contribution

Re: The future of television
 

So deploying 5G cameras in stadiums will get the game faster to streaming services but not linear, over the air ones?

Fancy.

Re: The future of television
 

The article is written by CTO of a company selling 5G video production solutions - perhaps the not the most impartial of information providers?

It states it will "reduce the end-to-end transmission latency to 200 milliseconds or less.", but then makes it clear that this is between the camera(s) and the video production - not to the end user.

This is all about on site availability and mobility, not about delivering reduced latency to the end customer.

Re: The future of television
 

Wow, a salesman blogging about how great his product is ... what a surprise ...

Re: The future of television
 

Well, here is a link to an article which appeared in January which will be music to the ears of those who still believe that there will be a place for existing linear channels as well as streamers in the longer term. Not a view I agree with obviously, but I thought it was about time I provided a little light relief for those who rigorously continue to hold to that view.

However, there is a cautionary note in here if you look closely - that is that when you give the audience the opportunity to exercise choice and control the viewing themselves, they will get used to doing so.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...hannels-doomed

All of this against the background of more and more channels closing down, often because the content is going to a streamer.

Those lost recently include:

3 Disney children’s channels
Sky Cinema Disney
Discovery Home and Health
Discovery Shed
Travel Channel
3 MTV channels
VH1

Other channel closures announced:

Fox

Channels which may be closed as a result of AT&T merger with Discovery:

Discovery Channel
Animal Planet
TLC
DMAX
Investigation Discovery
Discovery Science
Discovery History
Discovery Turbo
Quest
Quest Red
Food Network
Really
HGTV
Eurosport 1 & 2

Other channels rumoured to close soon:

National Geographic
Wild
AMC

Change of emphasis to streaming

Channel 4

Re: The future of television
 

Thoughts and prayers for all those struggling to get over the loss of discovery shed.

Re: The future of television
 

See: Line of Duty ratings.

Since Sky launched Sky+, NTL and Telewest launched catch up there’s been no real need for a significant proportion of households to ever watch BBC content as broadcast. Now with Smart TVs, various Freesat/Freeview play devices.

Yet they do.

Now I wouldn’t pretend for a minute these people don’t also stream. None of the rest of us view this as dogmatically as you do, much like most viewers.

Everyone expects fewer broadcast channels in the future especially as conglomerates consolidate. It’s a long journey to zero. And with every closure someone else moves up the EPG into a more prominent position.

---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------

Shed today, ITV1 sometime between now and 20x5.

Re: The future of television
 

I would refer you to the title of this thread. It’s not about now.

Re: The future of television
 

So it’s taken about 16 years for various technologies to get ~20% of viewership to stop watching as broadcast for a “must watch” programme. Yet in the next 14 linear TV will cease. :D

Suppose exponential growth is the big thing of the 2020s.

Re: The future of television
 

Yes, not long to go now.

Re: The future of television
 

Small point of accuracy but this defines AT&T's strategy. AT&T is not merging with Discovery. It is merging its Warner Media subsidiary with Discovery as part of a move to focus on infrastructure.It will not end up with 100% of Warner-Discovery; it will end up with less than 80%.

Ya stuff keeps getting worse and worse :(

Re: The future of television
 

I hope Fox doesn't close as I watch Fox HD every Friday for my NCIS fix.

Re: The future of television
 

Sadly, no ifs or buts, new owners Disney have announced they are closing Fox on 30th June.

Not sure where NCIS is going, we'll have to wait to find out. It might be Disney+.

Re: The future of television
 

We’ll see, cheekyangus. My view is that all content will be IPTV, and so TV channels (and therefore EPGs) will be unnecessary.

Boxing PPV is not on a ‘channel’ in the conventional sense, so why should other live events be?

The TV companies could decide to present live events the way you envisage, but they don’t have to. It will be a bit ‘old tech’ by then, don’t you think?

Re: The future of television
 

This thread is like a wee floating turd that just won’t go away.

Re: The future of television
 

Nice turn of phrase to read as I ate my breakfast this morning!

Re: The future of television
 

:D

IPTV services have EPGs. That's how people view what's available to them now, alongside other menus that make available lists of what is available on demand.

Well no, OB.

Even if you use the BT Sport app, or Sky Sports on "TV from Sky" on a PlayStation despite neither of them being broadcast "over the air" they present what is available live now and what is available "later" in a chronological fashion.

Do you think the average consumer wants to fire up these apps and see a jumble sale of content from the next 7 days with what is available now appearing on page 4 or 5 of a menu?

I think such a concept is palpably ridiculous.

Re: The future of television
 

Re: The future of television
 

David Boucher still embraces the idea of VM as a super-aggregator, which is reassuring. However, VM is currently behind the curve - they need to get a move on.

https://advanced-television.com/2021...pp-aggregator/

David Bouchier, Chief TV & Entertainment Officer at UK multiplay operator Virgin Media O2, has suggested the service is still working with the same content providers, but whereas previously it was an aggregator of pay-TV channels, it was becoming an aggregator of SVoD apps.

This won’t please the diehards, but at least it does seem to suggest that Virgin are not currently considering abandoning the TV side of their business.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

Where is the EPG for Netflix, Prime, Apple+, StarzPlay, etc? None of these SVODs have EPGs - instead, they have categories.

There’s nothing to stop any of these services from providing EPGs if they want to, just as Now and Pluto do now. However, I think most SVOD providers won’t bother with that.

Re: The future of television
 

There’s one user, and one only, of this forum who can be described as a die hard around this subject.

I note you ignored the bad news:

As each SVoD player has started to see mature markets, their growth curve declines.

We expect to see those big services requiring to be closer, embedded into our billing and our subscriber relationships

Sounds like he is closer to my view that these fledgling streaming services need Sky and Virgin Media more than the other way around.

Re: The future of television
 

It makes sense to list the times of PPV events, of course it does. But these aren’t really EPGs in the same sense. Currently, EPGs set out programmes on TV channels, one programme following another in a continuous schedule.

With PPV events, you may well get live events set out in time order, but they need not be sequential in the same way as a channel is - they will either be displayed in order of times or they could be displayed by event type (eg football, concerts, etc). Some of these events will overlap rather than be back to back.

But the concept of TV channels will not generally exist because it would not be a popular choice in an OTT environment.

I would be very interested to know what proportion of Now’s audience watch programmes on their live channels via the EPG rather than from the on demand section of the streamer.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m not sure why it’d be any more interesting than how many people watch Line of Duty as broadcast on BBC 1 than on iPlayer.

Re: The future of television
 

I didn’t ignore it, jfman. Nor did I take the meaning the way you took it, but I don’t find that at all surprising.

I think we all appreciate that as a market matures, the growth is less fast and eventually flattens out. However, while growth may slow, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the time viewers spend on the app follows that trend. Indeed, as viewers adjust to on demand environments, they will watch more in that way. Habits change over time.

---------- Post added at 20:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------

The reason it’s interesting is because we’ve all been brought up with TV channels and the way we watch content. We know that currently more people watch BBC content from easily accessible broadcast channels.

However, Now operates in a more integrated way, with the prominence of VOD and scheduled TV reversed. Both live TV and on demand viewing is on there, but the emphasis is on VOD. When presented in that reverse order, I believe that most people would go straight to on demand.

Re: The future of television
 

His words are there in black and white - how else could he mean it?

I appreciate that you’ve now accepted what I’ve been saying for some time. End users do not have unlimited disposable income - in particular due to the pandemic - and this creates an increasingly precarious situation for new entrants who are fundamentally trying to squeeze into an already well developed market.

Fundamentally you are introducing a bias to seek out the result that you want rather than consider consumer behaviour in the television market as a while.

As a Now TV subscriber the quality of on demand streams is higher than the live stream for content on the entertainment pass. The reality for the vast majority comparing broadcast HDTV is the other way around.

Re: The future of television
 

My 87 year old Mother is obsessed with NCIS, never has anything else on. Mind you it could be because she's lost or forgotten how to use the remote...

Re: The future of television
 

What do you mean, ‘now accepted’? I have always accepted that people don’t have unlimited disposable income. Why would you think otherwise? Yet again, you are attributing an argument to me that I have never made.

The number of new subscribers will grow less fast, and eventually flatten out over time because that’s the limit of interest in the streamer.

People who can’t afford more (or any) SVOD providers will turn to AVOD providers instead, and most VOD providers will probably give us that choice over time, although Netflix has ruled out an AVOD option up until now.

---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

I read what was actually written, and that does not contradict what I think or anything I have said in any way.

How it fits in with your thoughts on the matter I’m not sure, but if you are able to make sense of it within your belief system, I’m perfectly happy with this. :)

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------

My grandmother became more confused as she became older and would only ever watch ITV. She never, ever, turned the channel!

Re: The future of television
 

And fall for streamers who fail to continue to offer value in an ever competitive market.

I suspect many would just continue with Freeview to be fair and/or continue with the best pay-tv services that deliver value for them.

I fail to see why the average person, technologically agnostic, would have any appetite at all for ceasing to watch their existing preferences in favour as yet unidentified AVOD services.

It’s your dogmatic belief system, OB. I’m just watching the evolution of the television market with objectivity.

Re: The future of television
 

I don't have a dog in this particular fight,

but just thought I'd drop this here for you.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2021...ely-happening/

Re: The future of television
 

Thanks for this - I agree with what they are saying, that the trend is towards streaming, but I also agree with what else they said - that streaming will co-exist with linear, not replace it completely.

Re: The future of television
 

That’s what 99% of the contributors envisage. And yes thanks Pierre for directing us to an interesting read.

Interesting that Discovery describe existing customer relationships as “currency” - certainly makes it sound like Sky and Virgin will be well placed for the foreseeable.

Much less interesting than Pierre's link above but linked to the subject matter is this about streaming lag.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...ates-fans.html

Re: The future of television
 

I think Now does it that way to discourage viewers from streaming the same shows simultaneously, as Now would probably need to invest in more capacity to do this. As such costs come down and the broadband infrastructure improves, Now might even give its linear channels more prominence in the future.

Re: The future of television
 

It also flattens because the streamers aren't reaching the viewers who prefer to watch scheduled programmes rather than seeking it out on demand. It will possibly start to dip for established streaming services as more entrants join the streaming market and competition kicks in.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------


"He gave the example of “the sub-35 year-olds,” and said that half of this age group in the UK do not engage with national broadcasters on a regular basis, instead opting for YouTube."


The trend of sub-35 year olds preferring YouTube to broadcasters will be a problem for all broadcasters, whatever the platform. Growing up with short form videos and TikTok content doesn't really help to develop their attention span. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Looks to me that the VM strategy is to hold out for better deals from the streamers because they think the the streamers will eventually need them, so won't be offering any more anytime soon (it was said that the Disney+ negotiations failed because VM wanted a bigger cut of the subscription money).

Whilst VM are playing their usual waiting game in the hope of a more financially advantageous deal (as we have seen do for years with linear channels) the Sky strategy seems to be to embrace the streamers as all the most popular ones are already on there.

A dangerous gamble to take whilst linear channels continue to be pulled and VM customers gradually lose access to content with no reduction in subscriptions (in fact quite the opposite).

Re: The future of television
 

Sky has always marketed itself based on quantity of content (in the past, this was number of channels, and exclusive content on some of them). Once they’ve got the most stuff, they can charge a premium for the service and can afford lower shares from the content providers, at least initially. When they come to dominate the market they turn the tables and it suddenly gets a fair bit more expensive for content providers to access the platform.

However, as streamers can access customers directly in a way linear channel providers can’t, I think Sky will have a harder time repeating the strategy that served them so well last time around.

Re: The future of television
 

The same strategy should work for Sky with the streamers. The key is the content, and you can see why Sky like to integrate this with its other packages. It seems to be what people are increasingly demanding - all content easily accessible from one box.

Certain CF members excepted, of course.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------

Happily, attention spans tend to increase with age! They will adopt the streamers more readily as they get older and they won’t be bothering with inflexible TV channels.

Re: The future of television
 

Nobody disputes the convenience of everything on one box OB, but I fail to see what world “streamers” take their content from Sky, establish direct customer relationships and then put the content back in an integrated package from Sky.

The whole point of the exercise is to make money and therefore not rely on the pennies per month per subscriber that Sky routinely hand out to third parties.

Re: The future of television
 

The point is that it's a large demographic for the TV industry to be missing out on. This is a new trend, so you can't just assume that eventually they will change their habits and adopt more traditional forms of entertainment. Maybe in 10 years time some pay-tv exec will be giving the same example for under-45 year olds.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Exactly. Why take out the middle man just to add him back?

Re: The future of television
 

It’s certainly a mystery I’m yet to have a compelling argument in favour of.

If the true aim is for everyone to become the “next Netflix” retailing to millions of subscribers on their own then joining a wholesale bundle is only going to hit revenue hard in the long run.

While Sky can probably make it work with one or two platforms at substantially more than they offer third parties there isn’t enough potential for price rises to go further.

Re: The future of television
 

It’s also a seriously sub-optimal experience. We have five user profiles in our Netflix account and the programme recommendations are completely different in each of them. Netflix has worked exceptionally hard at that aspect of the functionality and it works very well. Why would they prefer to have that lost in a Sky-branded epg style screen?

Re: The future of television
 

Doesn't Sky already offer Netflix, fully integrated into their system? I think some contributors are arguing that something cannot happen when it already has.

Just to be clear, the incentive to be on as many platforms as possible is to be more visible and to encourage more people to subscribe to the service. Streamers may or may not accept discounts for those services that can attract more customers than they might otherwise have had. Some may only be prepared to offer introductory deals.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------

I'm not sure how you make out that acquiring more customers equates to having less revenue. Could you explain what you mean, please?-

---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

'Pennies per month'? Where did that come from?

It is quite possible that there will be no discount for some streamers - others, like Apple +, Britbox and Acorn may be prepared to do so to access many more customers that they otherwise would have.

As an interim stage in a transition away from TV channels, I would envisage a completely revised offering including Netflix, Prime, Discovery +, Disney + and Now (or Peacock if we get that in this country later on), together with the Freeview channels on an EPG. There could be slimmer packages for those wishing to pay less. The pay tv channels would disappear.

This would be as affordable as what we are paying now for the maximum package, there or thereabouts. For those of us with a multitude of streamers already, it would be cheaper.

Re: The future of television
 

You think wrongly. Perhaps re-read my post, and give proper weight to the word “prefer”. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

The streamers don't need a middle man and Sky know that, so prefer to work with them through gritted teeth instead of pretending that they don't exist like Virgin Media are doing.

By adding them to Sky it benefits the streamers as they have another outlet to push their product and it benefits Sky who hope that adding them to their STB will discourage churn. By doing various deals with the streamers, Sky can give extra incentives to continue subscribing to their main product by offering things like cut price Netflix and free Discovery+.

Sky make a little from subs taken out via them and the streamers sell a few more subs due to the extra shop window from Sky.

Sky customers have the convenience of having things on the one box and possibly on the one bill too.

Meanwhile, Virgin Media linear channels continue to drop off the EPG whilst prices go up. To obtain access to the lost material, their customers have to fork out for separately accessed streaming services.

I think it a certainty that some will inevitably find their VM subscription surplus to requirements.

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.