Re: The future of television
 

Whether in the BBC I-player or not its still a channel you are watching , the TV guide is much easier to find programmes rather than going into Iplayer for its now and next.

You are trying to fix something what isn't broken.

Re: The future of television
 

That sums up progress for you ;)

Re: The future of television
 

This discussion is just going round in circles now. For the nth time: the broadcast technology is irrelevant. Television broadcast according to a schedule is linear.

Re: The future of television
 

You are creating arguments out of points I have not made. As usual.

For starters, you need to pay more attention to what is actually happening before you respond to these things.

The new approach, as you don’t need me to remind you, is the ‘direct to consumer’ approach, and by that we are talking about all content being available on streamers. Given that we are now finding channels closing down and the content being transferred exclusively to streamers, I don’t know where this option is going to be for people to watch this content through TV channels even if they wanted to. Note that Disney+ has closed all its children’s channels and all its film channels. The content is now on Disney+ and there are no linear channels, just as I have said would happen all the way along. But for some inexplicable reason, you don’t see that. The next closures will probably be the Discovery channels, and Discovery+ doesn’t have linear channels either.

Now although linear channels are available on Pluto TV, Now and the BBC I-Player,, these are very much exceptions, and the first two put their on demand content more prominently on their streamers. I cannot see the linear channels continuing to appear on Now (TV) when Sky finally launch their streamer (Peacock), although they may continue the practice until the satellite part of their business continues. The I-Player is unlikely to change until all terrestrial is transferred to IPTV.

Of course viewers will not pay twice for the same content. So if, for example, Virgin decided to offer a choice of streamer bundles and terrestrial TV, and it is almost certain that this will be the case, we would no longer be paying for pay-tv channels because they would no longer be offered. There would be no point in doing so, would there?

You claimed that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. When I questioned you on that your response was that UHD was not available to those not on the internet or who suffered low speeds. But that does not address the point that the streamers offer so much more UHD and no SD, making your assertion completely wrong. I might as well respond to your point by saying that Freeview channels were not available to people without electricity. Clear, unambiguous nonsense.

As for your ‘cost of maintaining linear TV’ argument is concerned, again, it is the wrong argument. The future is with the streamers, and most of these will not carry an option of linear channels, whether you like it or not. Disney is showing the way. All the things you have been denying in relation to my vision of the future are starting to be realised, but jfman, you just carry on arguing. In fact, I suspect that you will still be arguing when the last linear channel has closed down.

Re: The future of television
 

Have DAZN not trebled their price in Italy?

Make your mind up OB. One day it’s direct to consumer, the next it’s content aggregators.

The plucky upstart defying the trend.

2035?

Why would they no longer be offered by anyone?

The number of people without the internet - and fast internet - is clearly far greater those without electricity. Yet you have the cheek, despite all of your inconsistencies, to accuse anyone else of spouting nonsense.

Incorrect Old Boy. It’s precisely the right argument - your inability to offer a response of any meaningful consequence obviously means you’d prefer to debate something else. That’s understandable. But it doesn’t change the fact that the financial viability of linear television will continue long past your arbitrary end date plucked from thin air.

Re: The future of television
 

Re: The future of television
 

At present I can order the apps as I choose, along the bottom of the “home” view on my Samsung TV. I have Netflix in prime position at bottom left, followed by iPlayer, Disney+ and Amazon Prime. ITV, channel 4 and 5 players are well off to the right somewhere because I so rarely use them. I’m guessing in future, the PSB apps will be hard-coded to the left of the home view and only then will I be able to re-order all the others.

Re: The future of television
 

I think so too.

It will be the streamer version of the PSB channels having 'due prominence' on the EPG's.

Re: The future of television
 

I don’t think you are getting my drift. At some point in the future, VM will have to take account of the fact that TV channels are closing and the content added to the streamers. As we’d otherwise have fewer channels, it would make sense to have packages of streamers instead of pay-tv channels.

Look at what happened with all those Disney channels, and think about what will be the result when they all do that. It’s just a matter of time.

My point is that you won’t be able to choose between scheduled linear channels as now and the streamers, because the linear channels will no longer exist. Just like happened with Disney.

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Wait a minute - you should know by now that what I have been saying is that the scheduled linear channels as we know them now will no longer exist. All4 is a channel, as is My5, the ITV Hub and of course the BBC I-Player. They may continue to exist beyond our current scheduled channels, although they may become absorbed within a free section of Britbox or something like that. So ITV, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, etc will all combine under let’s say the ITV Hub, categorised by programme type instead of by channel.

How on Earth you think it is easier to find a programme in a TV listings magazine with all those listed channels, I don’t know. In future, you would simply go to a streamer and look up dramas, documentaries, and so forth. Sky and Virgin could assist by providing such categories together for all the streamers on their system to assist the viewer to find the programme of their choice rather than search streamer by streamer.

By the way, Amazon already does something similar, as does Apple+.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m still lost is the streaming model direct to consumer or reliant upon Sky/Virgin or whoever else for wholesale revenue?

Still nothing on where/when BBC/ITV/Sky arbitrarily close down linear channels rather than continue to support their cross platform offerings.

Nothing on who/where/when this becomes as seamless as an EPG.

Pipe dream stuff.

Re: The future of television
 

On Sundays it's wholesaled by the telcos, on Mondays it's direct to consumer. I'll keep you posted about Tuesday. :D

Re: The future of television
 

Re: The future of television
 

Who said anything about a TV listings magazine :confused:

A digital TV guide I'm sure what I put was pretty clear.

Re: The future of television
 

I do realise that your fantasy situation is to have world where only streamers exist and linear channels no longer exist. Nobody else is going to look at broadcasting with exactly the same extreme viewpoint as yourself. It isn't going to make anyone who doesn't want to seek out content on a streamer to suddenly think "oh! OLD BOY dreams of a world where linear channels no longer exist. I must change my life around and stop watching scheduled TV". Really, it just isn't going to happen.

Okay, let's look at Disney, it tried and failed to acquire Sky. If it had been successful I don't think they would have gone through the scheduled channel cull we have now seen. When the Disney kids channels closed, reports were that Disney was asking too much to recontract for channels with declining viewing patterns. Nothing unusual there, viewing patterns change and pay-tv providers no longer consider them to be worth the asking price. The profit margin is no longer there for the pay-tv provider.

Disney is fairly unique, it has the global scale to throw all its weight behind its streaming service. As a global provider, it doesn't even matter if their decision in the UK and Europe loses viewers. They are charging their subscribers far more than they were getting from the pay-tv providers so they still have some income, even in the worst case scenario. In America, they still have the ABC network as an outlet for scheduled content, so very little risk in that market.

Looking at the other channel closures over the last few months, I don't see anything to be of concern. CBS/Viacom killed off a few music channels, viewing figures have been dropping for years in this genre, so understandable. Discovery killed off a few of their under-performing channels. They have recently acquired channels from UKTV and were spreading their content too thinly across their channels. Some fairly routine and far from unexpected changes there.

No real indication of the pay-tv providers haemorrhaging channels.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------

I wonder how he thinks it will be funded. If Sky dropped the Disney channels because the profit margin was too small, why would they be happy to move from selling scheduled channels direct to their own customers. The small amount of cash received from acting as a subscription collector for global streamers isn't going to be enough to run a viable TV platform.

Not to mention that the streamers will be reluctant to wholesale their streaming platforms, it cuts into their profit margins too.

Re: The future of television
 

Oh, thanks for that, Chris, really helpful. I only did it that way to avoid the more time-consuming method. However, consider me told. jfman will need to guess at my responses, but it really shouldn’t take too much brainpower, I guess.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------

This is just fantasy, you know. I have said the linear channels will close years ago and I was derided for expressing such an opinion. Now it’s actually started to happen, well within my timeframe, you are pleading a special case forDisney. What will be the special case for Discovery channels, which are probably the next in line.

As for adding these streamers to TV platforms, how do you explain the streamers we already have on Sky, Virgin Media and BT? How do you explain Roku and Amazon Fire?

Whatever the economic arguments you may have, please just acknowledge that it is already happening!

You are personalising this as if it’s my fault!

Re: The future of television
 

It’s difficult to not personalise it when you are the single, solitary person with such a dogmatic view that only streaming television can survive while linear channels - despite still being a popular method of both distributing and consuming television - must disappear.

To address epsilon’s valid point however I’ll add the following.

Fundamentally OB has, for some years now, mistakenly viewed streaming as something more than a different method of consuming television. To that end, streaming services represent a subset of the television market. Subscription streaming services (themselves a subset of the pay-tv market) aren’t meaningfully increasing the size of the pot - they’re only trying to claim a greater share of a limited pot.

Neither Roku (nor Amazon) are taking responsibility for retailing the vast majority of packages on their devices - he knows this - but conflates this with the relationship Sky/Virgin have as a middle man and assumes (incorrectly) that there’s a place for someone in the streaming market for a “gatekeeper” platform.

There isn’t. The whole point of the exercise is to gain market share at the expense of other participants. Why would anyone want a third party to decide what prominence they have (if any) on consumer devices while trying to retail direct to consumers?

And none of this - absolutely none - has anything to do with the economics of a channel maintaining a linear presence in addition to steaming as the BBC, ITV and Sky do now. Nobody feels dogmatic about this bar OB as he presents this as a one way street. The reality is that fewer linear channels existing causes the remaining ones to become more prominent near the top of EPGs.

Almost all of us envisage a future with far fewer linear channels - some content lends itself to it. News, sports channels that place magazine programming (adverts essentially) between live programming and content where people are active on social media while viewing live (X Factor type programming for example). ITV aren’t going to give up prominent access to every household and television in the country to join a jumble sale menu.

However when on the ropes the goalposts move and OB expects that nobody will follow him down the rabbit hole.

Re: The future of television
 

All I see is Disney not managing to acquire Sky. Having a spat with pay-tv providers unwilling to pay the asking price for their channels and throwing their weight behind their streaming service.

As for Discovery.
https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2021...ely-happening/

They seem quite happy with the co-existence of streaming and scheduled content and have actually said as much.

Amazon Fire is simple, Amazon wants everyone to buy its devices, it is a major marketing opportunity for their wider business. Roku are selling devices, that is their business. So was Now TV but why did they stop? They were supplying subsidised devices which customers could then use to watch content from their competitors. They no longer provide devices. That will, largely be the case for the pay-tv providers. Pay-tv providers are selling channel bundles, that is where their income comes from. If they were to totally lose that income and become rent collectors for global streamers their business model would collapse.

Is it?

Not really, just responding to your points.

Re: The future of television
 

Erm, no one has ever said that no linear channels would close - over the last few decades, some have closed, some new ones have come along, and now with streaming, some more will close.

What (most) people don't accept is your dogmatic assertion that by 2035 all linear channels will be closed down, and the only option available will be streaming.

Re: The future of television
 

I'm pretty sure that the asking price to renew the carriage contract for the Disney channels will have been priced at an unrealistic level so that Disney either made a killing or were able to remove them (and blame Sky/VM if need be). A similar strategy that Sky have used to keep SA off VM.

I did think that the smaller, niche channels would move over to streaming and we've seen this happen with some of these channels eg Horse & Country, some Asian channels etc, but it does seem that the larger companies are doing or considering it sooner than I envisaged.

One thing that would improve the streaming services would be the ability to record from them and this is where the traditional pay TV companies could offer a USP to encourage people to stick with them. BT already does this and is currently the only way of being able to record from Now TV.

Re: The future of television
 

What if the streamers don't want to be aggregated?
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2021...reaming-offer/

Re: The future of television
 

Exactly my point.

Wholesaling while also retailing “direct to customer” eats into your potential revenue. Remembering that it’s all just television and streaming isn’t magically exempt from the economics of that market BT Sport is in Virgin Maxit as was ESPN before that and Setanta before it.

This benefits both parties - Virgin subscribers were less likely to take Sky Sports than Sky subscribers, therefore further less likely to take an additional sports service from another provider. Way back £2.50 per sub per month was getting quoted for Setanta as wholesale. Guaranteed income they relied upon.

However it worked because Virgin subscribers weren’t the target audience for Setanta direct to customer subs. Sky subscribers with Sky Sports were as they’d be significantly more likely to cough up £15 a month for dedicated sports channels than someone paying Virgin £40 a month for a tv/phone/broadband bundle.

For a general entertainment streamer they can’t wholesale to Sky or Virgin without cannibalising their own potential customer base.

Re: The future of television
 

Not if it adds new customers, it doesn't. Anyway, I was talking about discounting, not wholesaling.

Streamers like Apple TV, Discovery+, Britbox and Acorn would benefit from discounting. Netflix and Prime not so much as they both have a large existing customer base. The latter two might benefit more from discounted first years for Virgin customers who were not already subscribers.

No-one here is arguing that simple economics do not apply to any party. That's a product of your own imagination.

---------- Post added at 17:51 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

I know for a fact that you are not correct when you say this.

What is correct is that some very aggressive linear channel fanatics are trying to beat people who suggest such things into submission.

I will not succomb to this kind of bullying. I am very happy to answer questions on the views you and others express, but it seems to me that you are not interested and you are not listening, which begs the question of why you continue to post on this subject.

I have been saying for 6 years now that by 2035, I believe that our scheduled channels as currently presented will no longer exist. I have said that the change would be gradual at first but after a few years, scheduled channels as we know them now would start to close. This is already happening.

In the last year, the following channels have closed:

Home & Health
Discovery Shed
Travel Channel
VH1
3 MTV channels
Lifetime
All 3 children's Disney channels
Sky Cinema Disney

....to mention those that come to mind.

The most significant of these are Disney's channels, because the content remains available, but only on the streamer.

To you and others arguing that the prediction I have made is not a viable proposition, this should be sounding alarm bells, but it isn't. You continually preach the same message despite your arguments disintegrating before you.

I might as well just sit back now and let you eventually come to terms with the fact that you were wrong.

I note that you claim that if only one channel survives, you will have been proved right. Well, that shows how confident you are!

Re: The future of television
 

The money comes from someone’s bottom line either way, OB.

Yet Netflix are discounting to Sky customers and Amazon to Vodafone customers.

It’s only when you have an established customer base that strategic discounting becomes more viable - the content costs are there anyway and the marginal cost of an additional subscriber is near zero.

For the fledgeling providers, while in their desperation it’s likely, in practice it puts them further from a sustainable business model not closer to one.

Name a single other user who shares your view?

Bullying is quite the accusation OB.

In practice you are being asked to evidence your view and you cannot.

What do you mean “as currently presented”? This sounds like another Pluto TV goalpost shift.

OB it is you who created the “one channel” bar for the rest of us by dogmatically insisting no linear channels. None. When others make the point they believe there will be (often far) fewer you still tell them they are wrong, it will not be financially viable. Not even to run a 24 hour advert for a streaming service into every home in the land.

No linear channels is just that. Zero. Not “freeview”, not a basic service of four free to air channels, not six, not fifteen, not thirty.

It’s zero.

Re: The future of television
 

Perhaps you would draw attention to where I have said that.

All I claim is that I believe that the scheduled linear channels will all ultimately be closed and the content made available on the internet.

The rest is your imagination.

Re: The future of television
 

Literally this post.

Re: The future of television
 

Not if it's new customers that would not otherwise have had, jfman. That's new income.




You are bullying and baiting and that's why no-one is wanting to join in the debate.


What I will say is that if one or two remain, I will have been substantially right. But you would be substantially wrong.

Re: The future of television
 

Not if it's new customers that would not otherwise have had, jfman. That's new income.




You are bullying and baiting and that's why no-one is wanting to join in the debate.


What I will say is that if one or two remain, I will have been substantially right. But you would be substantially wrong.

Re: The future of television
 

Thats not the reason ;)

Re: The future of television
 

OB you’ve messed up the quotes again.

If one or two linear channels remain you will be absolutely wrong.

If your initial position had been that there will be far fewer linear channels many, many more people (possibly even myself) would have agreed with you.

A world where the BBC maintains a linear channel for universal service, ITV as a promo for their streaming service, and a small number of channels for Sky or anyone else to showcase their content for a streaming service and a “main event” type sports service isn’t entirely beyond the realms of possibility. When I’ve made these comments before you’ve dismissed them.

Re: The future of television
 

Ok, then let's just stop all this nonsense and the sheer pedrantry that is characteristic of this debate on this forum.

I will be the man here and say that I agree that most scheduled linear channels will close and that IPTV will be the principal means of transmission of content by around 2035.

I am happy to compromise on that if it stops all the argument.

Re: The future of television
 

Mods I think someone has hacked OB ;)

Re: The future of television
 

I did indeed, my friend, but if you had waited for a few more minutes, you will see that I corrected it.

I'm sure you got the message, though. :D

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

I just want some peace, man, and everyone is well past fed up.

Re: The future of television
 

Always had you down as a bit of a hippy OB. Bet you were there, stoned, at the first Glasto ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Can I point out that for most scheduled linear channels to close by 2035, a number of things would have to happen.

1) The PSB mandate would have to be abolished

2) Appropriate broadband would have to be installed to nearly all the country, including all those out of the way towns, villages, and hamlets

3) 25 million people would have to change their viewing habits drastically

To explain 3) further, let’s look the U.K. demographics - at the moment, most of the move away from linear broadcasting is in the under-35s. In the U.K. today, the average life-span is 81 (averaging out male/female life expectancy), and the age breakdown (rounded figures) is as follows -

0-35 - 29 million

35-64 - 25.5million

64+ - 12 million

For the sake of discussion, let’s say the existing 64+ will have shuffled off this mortal coil in 14 years - that leaves over 25 million who are major users of linear broadcasting.

I find it difficult to see the circumstances where a majority of that group of viewers would give up how they currently view from a combination of linear and streaming to streaming only.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1623780541

Re: The future of television
 

If only, Mr K. But I have put it on my bucket list.

Re: The future of television
 

Do I be pedantic in favour of OB here....

Decisions, decisions.

Re: The future of television
 

I think that event was due to happen on 21 June, now 19 July. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

So, there’s hundreds of channels of pure garbage out there (not counting +1s that’s essentially cheating ;)) that I think most could close by 2035. Not generally because broadcasters go to the wall (they’ll all stream anyway) but there will be competing pressure for bandwidth (especially on the cable network) and satellite operators reluctant to go further in commissioning many new birds.

I’ve said before OB is right in spotting trends my issue was always “to zero” - it’s difficult for market forces alone to drive that kind of radical change in a short timeframe. Viewers are agnostic but the nudge is well under way, investment in internet connectivity continues.

A Freeview service of 15-20 HD channels (if it’s worth selling off more bandwidth) and a satellite/cable offering of a further 40-60 UHD/HD channels supplemented by on-demand/streaming is something I could envisage by 2035. I could see streamers launching IPTV channels to promote content but I don’t see this as meaningfully changing the total.

Re: The future of television
 

It is possible because:

(1) The PSB arrangements are to be reviewed and they could change the way the rules are applied. We know that to be the case and it has been widely reported.

(2) The broadband rollout continues and all homes will be connected within the next 10 years.

(3) It is not just a question of habits having to change. If Sky's operation becomes IPTV only and the broadcast transmitters are closed down (and I know some on here don't believe it will happen, but I do), then everything will be IPTV. While some of you believe that broadcasting over IPTV will still allow access to scheduled linear TV channels, I would point out the the ITV Hub, All4 and My5 have not done this, and there is no reason to suppose they will in the future.

So if I am correct in those assumptions, the choice to view existing channels will simply not be there.

Re: The future of television
 

If ... could be ... suppose ... assumptions ...

Re: The future of television
 

Well, what else is there when we are talking about the future? I have assumed that there will not be an apocalyptic Third World War that destroys infrastructure around the planet as well, but I think it is a reasonable assumption.

Incidentally, my assumptions are based on technical articles I have read, so it is not as pie in the sky as some of you like to make out.

Re: The future of television
 

“Technical articles” ... right.

Well you know the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club.

Re: The future of television
 

They don’t know they are in the Dunning-Kruger club? :D

Re: The future of television
 

In the "most" scenario I outlined above I envisage PSB to be relatively unchanged. As broadcasters they will evolve and have feet in both camps retaining linear channels over DTT/cable/Sky/streaming for a universal service.

While 100% FTTP is extremely unlikely once that figure is in the mid to high 90s we have opted for a "two tier" Freeview service based on what multiplexes can be received - I can see this being enough to support a significant shift.

I think demographic shift supports the direction of travel. For OBs point 3) I doubt broadcast transmitters will close down as soon as that to preserve 1) and broadcast something to the gaps in 2).

Re: The future of television
 

The club secretary, although a 'good egg', constantly fails to send the welcome pack to new members :D

Re: The future of television
 

There’s nothing wrong with my metacognition. But I think that some are having problems with their superiority complexes. :D

Re: The future of television
 

Well done, you, on picking out a couple of words from the first paragraph of the Wiki article... ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Yes, I thought you’d see the connection. Well done, Hugh.

Re: The future of television
 

That makes sense to me apart from "commissioning many new birds." which is obviously "shows". Something else on your mind at the time of typing, jfman? :D

Re: The future of television
 

Satellites get called birds because they fly. ;)

I don't see SES or Eutelsat in a hurry to match the number up there right now for the 2035 to 2050 period, but I'm sure they will continue to provide something. In particular as they can be moved to different markets as the situation evolves.

Re: The future of television
 

Ah, got it, thanks.

Re: The future of television
 

Maybe these are getting the carrier to handle the billing side of things so you get discount if you get the content bill added to carrier bill.


The carrier can then say they can offer content at discount, content can save on all the billing side of things by passing off to carrier.

Re: The future of television
 

I think that in the medium term Freeview will be squeezed out more and more in favour of mobile phone spectrum.

This is when satellite use will increase as will reception via streaming and 5G.

Eventually DTH satellite use will wain as it will be seen as expensive, cumbersome, old fashioned and a contributor to space junk/non environmentally friendly practices.

In the long term I believe that all* TV, even traditional cable TV who are currently trialling IPTV, will be provided over the internet.

* Maybe for a time one mux will remain for the PSB channels and for national emergency purposes only. Anyone who complains will be told that they are still able to receive what they got in the days of analogue and that anything over and above this was a bonus.

Re: The future of television
 

Oh dear! It’s at times like this the viewing audience wishes that these broadcast channels were receivable via IPTV.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2021...-east-england/

[EXTRACT]

Television and radio services for more than one million people will remain off-air “indefinitely” following a transmitter fire.

The blaze hit the mast at Bilsdale on Tuesday, disrupting Freeview, DAB and FM Radio signals across North Yorkshire, Teesside and parts of County Durham.

Re: The future of television
 

Where were you around 1pm on Tuesday afternoon? :scratch:

Re: The future of television
 

Most of that can be streamed anyway

Re: The future of television
 

They could equally have wished they had satellite.

Re: The future of television
 

Luckily, nothing like that could happen to IPTV…

Oh, wait…

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...d-outages.html

Re: The future of television
 

I’d really rather not say…:erm:

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:56 ----------

Yes, 2 days is dreadful. I hope that never happens to me.

But ‘indefinitely’ is worse, wouldn’t you agree?

Re: The future of television
 

An average of more than 2 days, not a max...

Edinburgh had an average total down time of over 7 days last year, according to the article, while Bristol had nearly 5 days.

Anyway, services are being restored.

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2...as-caught-fire

Re: The future of television
 

:D

I stand corrected! 'Indefinitely' is still worse, though. :Yes:

Re: The future of television
 

In yesterday's You and Yours programme from about 0:30, it was said that, according to Ofcom the use of streaming services has doubled since the start of the pandemuc:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000ysmf

Re: The future of television
 

This topic really is the turd that won’t flush. :rofl:

Re: The future of television
 

DAZN is interested in taking over BT Sport.

Who would have thought it?

https://www.mediamole.co.uk/entertai...rt_464070.html

Re: The future of television
 

Other interested parties in BT Sport are said to include Disney and Amazon.

Re: The future of television
 

It all seems to point to increased streaming of the EPL matches. This won’t please the diehards.

Re: The future of television
 

As has already been pointed out every EPL game is already streamed via Sky Go , Now TV and the BT Sport app.

Re: The future of television
 

Almost everyone.

DAZN get referenced in almost every article going on the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ke-in-bt-sport

https://www.telecomtv.com/content/di...rection-41412/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58219424

https://insidersport.com/2021/05/10/...zNAzujcnBszRJR

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...roadband-push/

https://deadline.com/2021/07/dazn-ke...or-1234789952/

https://www.ibc.org/trends/the-sale-...s/7520.article

Re: The future of television
 

It seems that the truth is dawning, then. Good to know. :D

Re: The future of television
 

I’m not really sure how DAZN bidding for a stake in BT Sport (or even all of it) equates to any “truth”.

The truth would be that almost all of their customers on day 1 would be watching on linear, broadcast channels. I don’t see them closing that down on day 2 to suit the illogical dreams of you, OB.

Re: The future of television
 

DAZN is a streaming company. If they do take over BT Sport, then they will want to bid for the Premiership rights - that was my point.

I agree that DAZN will initially offer a broadcast linear channel in all probability, but they are basically a streaming business.

Re: The future of television
 

Seems a lot of supposition and rhetoric flying about based on the word "possibly"…

Re: The future of television
 

Yet in doing so they’d also resign themselves to the fact that their existing streaming business couldn’t develop a business case to bid for the rights (against BT, Sky and possibly others).

They won’t offer a linear channel “in all probability”. They would certainly do so because that’s what makes buying BT Sport more attractive than bidding for the rights themselves - the existing contracts and customer base.

Re: The future of television
 

While OB relies heavily on the word possibly and twists DAZN’s potential to invest billions in a linear television let’s consider other news articles that have happened recently.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...his-month.html

Sky to launch an IPTV service.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...duct-soon.html

Virgin to launch an IPTV service.

Glorious hybrids of linear and on demand being made available to millions more homes and a very welcome development.

Re: The future of television
 

You’d only complain if I said it will happen.

:beer:

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------

No, they would offer the ‘linear’ broadcast channel due to the current level of broadband penetration. That makes absolute sense.

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:49 ----------

It’s transitional, jfman. That’s because it’s only 2021.

Oh, and it costs billions to invest in a linear broadcast channel now, does it? Not long ago, you said it cost buttons to do so. I really hadn’t appreciated inflation was that out of control.

Re: The future of television
 

I was quoting the DAZN chairman Kevin Mayer, not you… :)

https://www.reuters.com/business/med...ys-2021-09-15/

Re: The future of television
 

Which is a round about way of saying the customers aren’t there. The business mode isn’t there.

As you well know, it’s the broadcast part that is buttons.

The contracts BT hold, plus the customer base (and the leap towards an actual business model) that costs more.

I could set up a stall selling fake Pepsi. The fact it looks like Pepsi and I’ve got no customers doesn’t mean I’d command the share price of actual PepsiCo.

Re: The future of television
 

I don’t dispute that, so I don’t understand your point. Until high speed broadband is rolled out across the whole country, a supplementary broadcast channel is necessary.

---------- Post added at 23:42 ---------- Previous post was at 23:39 ----------

So how do you reconcile that with your comment? Let me remind you:

‘While OB relies heavily on the word possibly and twists DAZN’s potential to invest billions in a linear television let’s consider other news articles that have happened recently.’

Re: The future of television
 

Could be a while, then…

From April this year - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-8392/

Re: The future of television
 

I am aware of that, and this will clearly impact on my original pronouncements on the speed of changing over to streaming only. To what extent, it’s too early to tell.

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that if government priorities result in a slowdown in broadband rollout, this will inevitably impact on the streaming only future that I have put forward.

Re: The future of television
 

You know the linear broadcasting bit is tiny, right? Like none of the text and tits channels cost billions to run.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m still trying to digest the contradiction in your posts between the ‘buttons’ and the ‘billions’.

You are all over the place, mate.

Re: The future of television
 

I think you should switch off at 10pm rather than continue late night ramblings OB. I’ve been clear throughout that linear channels cost buttons to run relative to the cost of content.

Your persistent wilful misinterpretation of my posts is both tedious and time consuming.

Re: The future of television
 

I interpret your posts as they are written. If you want to be wilfully vague or obtuse, you are succeeding wonderfully.

Re: The future of television
 

Anyone can use the search facility to find countless posts where I state content is the main cost of any broadcaster regardless of distribution method.

Your word play doesn’t distract the rest of us from the fact DAZN investing in BT is a retreat from the glorious streaming future not progress towards it.

Re: The future of television
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...bcab4cb96469de

Re: The future of television
 

From the ESPN… thread.

Yes the commercially viable rollout - this is significantly less than national coverage provided by the current broadcast methods.

Streaming services are already “widespread” OB - nobody is disputing that they can or they will. The only dogmatic point anyone holds is that you have that linear must end.

A few hundred thousand homes would be a critical mass from which it would still be viable for Sky, BT or anyone else to maintain a linear presence of key content.

And Sky also stream, I fail to see why that gets discounted almost every time you consider a who’s who of broadcasting. You seem to view streaming as distinct from the television market as a whole which I’ve reminded you on a number of occasions it isn’t. The vast, vast majority of viewers use all the tools at their disposal (streaming, linear, recording) to enjoy TV.

Clearly DAZN are committed to linear broadcasting if they are weighing in to the tune of billions.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m sure you are getting muddled here, jfman. Of course Sky and others stream. There is no dispute about that.

If conventional TV costs buttons, then clearly the billions you are talking about must relate to content, which in turn can be used for streaming only when the conventional channels close. In the meantime, both services will operate side by side.

Re: The future of television
 

It does indeed relate largely to content (and existing customer base). If it were as easy as you continuously claim a streamer would just sit back and pick off the rights one by one. However we both know there’s no business model that can fund top end rights that excludes a proportion of the population by not being technology neutral.

Re: The future of television
 

Sky Glass Pricing.

43" - £649 upfront or £13 per month

55" - £849 upfront or £17 per month

65" - £1,049 upfront or £21 per month

And what do I need on top?

Sky Ultimate TV (required) - £26 per month

Sky Cinema - £11 per month

Sky Sports - £25 per month

Sky Stream puck - £50 upfront and £10 a month to stream on TVs in other rooms

Re: The future of television
 

So Sky Glass is just a TV with an integrated satellite tuner? They could have done this decades ago … :confused:

Re: The future of television
 

It's not even - it's linear channels (I know, how quaint!) and streaming over IPTV. No dish.

Needs 10 meg broadband (or 25 for 4K).

Re: The future of television
 

The more I think about it, Sky have played an absolute blinder with Sky Glass. The product itself may/may not be a pup in the long run, but the important thing for Sky is it allows them insights into customer experiences that other services don’t have in the IPTV/streaming market without cannibalising their own Sky Q customer base in the meantime.

The obvious next step is a STB based on IPTV - but that has to be proven reliable in the long run in use by millions of subscribers simultaneously. I suspect we aren’t there yet, but the Glass product will give them insights into the challenges in the meantime.

Re: The future of television
 

How is it different to Amazon Prime, or Netflix, or other streaming services, which seem pretty reliable ?

Re: The future of television
 

It’s not to say they’re unreliable, but as Sky are punting £90 a month subscriptions and not £9 a month reducing the PQ to reduce bandwidth for customers used to HD and 4K via satellite because an ISP somewhere starts throttling in peak times isn’t an optimal outcome.

During lockdown 1 Netflix and others reduced bandwidth because of the amount of traffic on the internet. I think it works well because not everyone is trying to use it at once - others are watching broadcast channels on cable, satellite and terrestrial or recordings.

Re: The future of television
 

You are in denial, jfman. Conventional linear TV and streamers are working side by side during this beginning of the transition to streaming only.

It’s obvious to most, but it won’t be proved until it happens. And that’s still over a decade away.

Re: The future of television
 

Is there any actual evidence of this?

You still erroneously seem to portray two sides - linear TV and streamers - as if it’s two entirely separate markets. The vast majority of television in this country, by viewership or revenue, is consumed by viewers who utilise both from companies who operate both.

Until you demonstrate clear cost savings - which you have not to date - the idea that companies will turn off sources of revenue are fanciful.

Re: The future of television
 

No, it’s not! Sky Glass has already demonstrated, surely, that the age of multiple pay-tv channels is disappearing. There are only 140 channels on Sky Glass.

If you can find all your programming when you want to see it on the apps, why endure a waiting time and advertisements on the live TV channels? The key, as I keep saying, is to integrate the content from the apps so there is one central index, appropriately categorised, from which shows can be selected. Content can also be showcased in snippets if preferred.

Inevitably, as the benefits of on demand viewing start to get appreciated even by the stick-in-the-muds, there will be too few viewers left to be bothered with scheduling everything to a live platform. When the numbers get low enough, the advertising won’t be sufficient to sustain it and it simply won’t be worth the effort any more.

I am well aware of how things work now, jfman, but now is not the future.

Re: The future of television
 

And unless your name is Nostradamus or Cassandra, you cannot tell the future, but you act as if you can...

Re: The future of television
 

Well no, it’s a rights issue Sky don’t have the automatic right to retransmit all the free to air channels on Astra 2.

The same reasons anyone has since Sky+/TiVo launched I presume.

Yet here Sky have developed a TV that gives you what you want AND it has linear channels. And you are completely underwhelmed.

Yet you’ve never fully quantified this tiny figure, and whether it falls below those who can’t get/don’t want a suitable and necessary broadband package.

Indeed, but streaming doesn’t provide the smoking gun step change in consumption of content that would be required for your vision. If it’s about skipping ads that’s been here for almost two decades. If it’s content on demand the cable operators have been doing that since the early days of digital. Yet still, people tend to watch BBC1 live.