Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That's what the PVR was introduced for so as you could schedule your favourite shows whilst avoiding the dross , or is that you still watch TV live.;)

I have to wonder why you'd pay your money to VM or any traditional platform when you tell us how good the streaming services are it sort of seems a waste of money.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Kind of unavoidable with US content, which Sky has a lot of, as US 'hour long' shows have a running time of 42/43 minutes.

I can't see broadcasters moving away from 'on the hour' scheduling for primetime shows.

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------


That's very true. I do find it interesting though, that Amazon in particular, have been entering that space for the last few years.

Vikings
Black Sails
Outlander
Turn
Halt and Catch Fire
Into the Badlands
The Red Road
Rogue

All are shows that Amazon has first run rights to and they are good quality shows.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Very true , just a thought but could it be because Amazon's portfolio of Originals is far smaller than that of Netflix.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

1st paragraph. Netflix can't survive on £8.99 a month though. You yourself said in your last post to me they keep putting the price up for new customers. LOL, It was you who also said less well off people will flit between streaming services, now you are saying this will be stopped by streaming services charging an annual fee! Where exactly do you stand on this point now? Will it, in your opinion be, a monthly service people can drop monthly, or will it be an annual fee?
If it is an annual fee how much will it be? £100-£120? Lets assume there will be streaming services plus Amazon, Netflix and Now TV. I hope 5 sounds fair. How can a poor family afford to spare £500-£600 a year, on the 5 streaming services (so they can have all the variety) on top of Amazon, Netflix, Now TV and the license fee?

2nd paragraph. I am afraid I don't understand your sentence. Again, how will the subscription be paid? We have been over the pay per views stuff before. How much will cost someone to watch (for example) 3 shows that come on daily on a week night. (Let's forget about the weekend shows for now, and all the other shows.) That's 5 episodes a week 4 weeks a month. That's 20 episodes a month, per show. That equates to £10.00 per show a month. £30 a month to watch just 3 shows on a daily basis, I don't see that taking off.

3rd paragraph. Are seriously saying has more content than the content Sky can offer? How many more actively current shows do the channels on Sky broadcast compared to Netflix? Don't get me wrong, Netflix is great at the minute, but Sky has a massive amount of box sets and the number of channels frequently have something on I can watch. It will be difficult to say definitively who has more content though. I am going to stick with Sky though.

4th paragraph. My point about amazon was it is simply subsidized by the money Amazon make off of their main business website, which has adverts. So Amazon, in my eyes, will use advertising to help keep the costs of their services down. I appreciate it does not currently interrupt your viewing schedule. BTW, do you pay for the pay-per-view shows and or films on Amazon Prime?

5th paragraph. As for Now TV, it's odd after all this time you think I don't know the difference between broadcast tv and on demand, why would you suddenly think so? Did you not read the part where I said there were ads on the catch up services from Sky?!? It's also odd how for many weeks you have never said that you use now tv solely for catch up purposes (in fact I am sure you have said many times you still use linear TV and don't want it to go) but since PB rightly challenged me on my wording a number of posts ago, it seems you have tried to take his argument on further, which you are entitled to do. If I was wrong to state it is linear based, you equally wrong to say it is on-demand based - it offers both services.

If you want to say people use it more for on demand, look at their website, under entertainment pass it states

Addictive new shows and award-winning dramas on 13 pay TV channels that you won’t find on Freeview.

Watch Live, Catch Up on missed episodes or watch over 250 Box Sets On Demand.

The wording of this tells me that the first service it's selling is live TV you won't get on freeview. It then says, you can watch it all live and then you can use the catch up feature to watch any shows that were on at the same time. I am guessing that is because you can't record on Now TV, happy to be corrected. You will also see on the little cinema ticket stub adverts, that they are highlighting the live tv broadcast times for shows first, and then telling you it is on catch up too. I fail to see where it states this is primarily an on demand service. Please tell me on the website where its wording is aiming for on demand above linear tv.

I am not denying people use it as an on demand service too, but the wording (in my eyes) suggests Sky want to sell it as live TV first and foremost. Again, fair play if you are not getting ads on your on demand stuff. The fee I pay Sky is more that you pay for Now tv, and yet I am getting ads on the catch up service. Not sure how long that will be before it trickles down to Now TV. Please don't say its because you pay a subscription, so does every one Sky.

6th paragraph. Does relate to anything I said. How are they going to fund hoovering up all these exclusives?

7th paragraph. Okay, lets say the BBC, Channel 4, Fox and Universal are all worried, and they pull all their content off Netflix including all their films. How do Netflix justify charging the same price for considerably less content? And how is attractive is Netflix then to customers?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This is one of the most often-repeated pieces of nonsense about the BBC's future funding model.

There are four public service broadcasters in the UK*, and all of them are forbidden by law from hiding their PSB channels behind subscription. If ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 can fulfil their public service obligations based on advertising revenue, why do you imagine the BBC would be forced to do anything other than that, when and if the day comes that the licence fee is no longer considered tenable?

* six, technically, as STV and S4C have the PSB rights in channel positions 3 and 4 in Wales and Scotland, respectively

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Why is it 'nonsense'? Subscriptions are a much better way of funding the BBC than the licence fee. At least people will be able to choose whether or not to pay for the service.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I really find it hard to understand how people don't understand how much you get from the monthly licence fee... news, entertainment, education, radio, web etc. Especially someone of your age group (assuming 'OLD BOY' suggests what I suspect it suggests).

And why has the BBC been given the bill for pensioners' licence fee to make funding even more difficult? We all no why really; the Tories want to help their mate Rupert by attacking the BBC.

But here's my question to you:

How many BBC services do you currently consume?

How much would you be prepare to pay, if it were subscription based, to consume what you currently consume?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If I'm honest hardly any.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Same here hardly watch anything on the BBC.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Likewise. I do listen to R4 quite often but if they pull the FM plug that'll go as well.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I would still subscribe to the BBC as I use it a lot, but I know there are those who resent having to pay the licence fee as they don't watch or listen to their services.

By moving to a subscription model it would also encourage financial discipline at the BBC, which must be a good thing.

I would not be averse to commercials to supplement the subscription provided that these were shown between, and not during programmes. I wouldn't watch them myself, of course...:D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And my question: How much would you be prepared to pay?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I don`t watch much tv from the BBC and no radio so I for one wouldn`t subscribe to it if given the option,which I firmly believe we should be given. I know some people on here love the BBC,well that`s` fine you pay for it is what i think.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It is not about that for me; like many I don't watch that much. However, funding by advert or subscription, would influence content to make sure adds or subscriptions stay high.

The way the BBC is funded allows them to make programmes that wouldn't get made if funding is purely commercial, such as education, documentaries and minority interest pieces. I think this is good for the nation to have.

We all pay for things that we don't immediately gain from, but in the long run we do gain benefits from. For example people without children don't gain directly from so many things, from good schools to support groups for kids who need them. But everyone does gain from them in the end.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's nonsense because you have the examples of ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, which prove to you that the most effective way to fund a mass-audience channel is via advertising (plus other commercial including foreign sales and DVDs).

Leaving aside its status as a public service broadcaster, which makes it illegal to operate as a subscription service, the BBC is for the most part a mass-market service provider. The mass market in UK TV is served by ad-funded, free-to-air channels, not subscription services.

If the BBC is denied the licence fee, or any similar compulsory funding model, then it will operate its channels free-to-air, supported by advertising, exactly the same way as all the other public service broadcasters in the UK.