Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, Sky know where things are heading. That's why SkyQ will have 8 or 12 linear TV tuners.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But those tuners are still needed for the present. I would hope that the new Tivo box will also have more tuners. However, it also needs to be future proof and VM need to add lots more streaming/on demand content if they are to satisfy their customers.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's true mate most companies do 1 price rise a year whilst virgin media do 2 or 3 a year infact i'm sure a poster on here mentioned their bill had risen by over £10p/m in the last year, 1 of the price rises are ofcourse down to sky or so vm say anyway.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If Sky put the sports and movies up Virgin has no say in this matter as one suspects they lose money selling Sky's premium channels on to the customer.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

What is obvious is that each person has different priorities when it comes to TV viewing.

Many on this forum delight in having all sorts of means of getting content.

Though I have no statistics I suspect most people want to switch on the TV and with the minimum of button pressing watch their programme of choice.

Personally, except for the news, I record on TiVo just about everything I want to watch so rarely sit through adverts. However, if everyone did this all but the BBC would not be able to operate.

I have access to Netflix but it is such a palaver getting to it I rarely watch it (though I have to say once there it is brilliant so easily being able to continue where you left off). One problem is that twice recently it just stopped working mid programme. I think streaming is not yet reliable enough.

Finally, I watch on a 37 inch Panasonic. I really don't mind in most cases whether it is SD or HD (in fact on BBC 1 you need SD for the local news). I put this down to the excellence of the TiVo SD picture. Of course, I may think differently if I had an enormous screen.

Because of ease of tuning to your required programme I think TV as we know it will be around for a long time yet, though streaming services are sure to get more popular.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

My experience is completely different to that and find it very reliable. I wonder if it is a Tivo issue, assuming that is how you access it? A reboot would maybe solve the problem?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That's what I was thinking. I have been streaming a lot, particularly since Netflix was installed on the Tivo, and I have never experienced a problem except on the BBC i-player, when we were having all those problems with it some months back on the Tivo, with stuttering, pixillation, freezing, etc.

However, that now seems to be in the past as I have had no problems at all since then.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I have no doubt Netflix is reliable for most people, most of the time. After all streaming accounts for only a fraction of TV consumption in the UK. If it were ever to get to the point where the majority preferred to stream their entertainment, we would have problems - the UK is a long way short of having the necessary data-hauling capacity, and even if it did, there aren't enough power stations to run it.

At present, broadcasters pay the satellite and transmitter companies for carriage, but they do not pay for Internet transmission. If we ever get anywhere near the levels of home streaming some here have predicted, the bandwidth and power demands will be so great, a radically different (and ultimately more expensive) funding model would be required.

Just another of the many reasons why TV Content delivery will not undergo the revolutionary shift that some here have predicted, any time in the foreseeable future.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If streaming is currently reckoned to be around 10% of UK viewing (can only dig up a figure of 3.8% for 2014 but with growth that seems about right) then getting to 100% (which of course it won't ever need to) doesn't seem that big a stretch given advances in codecs, telecoms kit and more local CDN servers (which the big video delivery services do pay the ISPs for).

Interestingly, according to Ofcom the biggest decline in traditional TV viewing in any platform was when Netflix launched on the TiVo and were offering the six month free deals. That and a ton of other interesting info on viewing habits here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...ing_habits.pdf

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Actually, if the national news and entertainment infrastructure is ever to transfer to exclusively IP-based delivery, then 100% penetration is exactly what it *will* need to achieve. Why would you think otherwise?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

At long last, Chris, you have concluded that the broadcast linear channels would be in difficulty if sufficient numbers embraced streaming at the expense of our traditional channels.

So the only question now is, whether the trend towards streaming will, in fact, increase substantially over the years. I think it will, because streaming is so much more efficient and you can cram more programmes that you want to watch in your available viewing time.

I don't see how the broadband and power demands you mention would be a problem. Just compare Virgin's available broadband speeds now compared to just three years ago. Things change, and they are changing at a faster and faster pace.

It is a mistake to look at how things work now and to assume that current restrictions preventing progress will always be there in the future.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ----------

Interesting. The report clearly shows that the number of people watching live broadcast TV has begun it's long decline. ITV's portfolio of channels has suffered a worrying decline in audience share.

The writing is on the wall. I believe that this decline will accelerate as time goes on. No reason to think it won't.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Errr ... No I haven't. The point I was making was actually so far removed from that, it's hard to know what to say to you by way of a response.

Still, at least it proves that you're basically not engaging with the issues at all - you're simply reading everything as being supportive of something you see a bright future for anyway, ultimately for no other reason than you really like it and can't understand why more people don't do it.

Further proving my point - you are welded to the idea that everyone basically wants to consume entertainment the way you do. Until you begin to accept that other people consume entertainment in different ways, you're never going to truly grapple with the issues here.

Again, proving the point that you can't, or won't, engage with anything that challenges your pre-conceived views. In fact, the point about lack of data capacity, and lack of electricity generating capacity to run it, was made months ago, with supporting links, in this very thread. Whether you can see the problem or not, is irrelevant. It exists.

Virgin Media and others are very good at advertising blisteringly fast headline speeds, but they are selling you a contended service. You share the same chunk of bandwidth with at least half your street. If the entire UK TV audience tried to consume something in HD at the same time, using the Internet as opposed to a terrestrial aerial or a satellite dish, you would very quickly learn a frustrating lesson in just how much of that 200Mbps is actually "yours".

The UK's broadband and power generating capacity is far, far short of where it would need to be in order to support the IP based system you are advocating. The information is out there, and it's in here. Try actually reading the thread. The other day you said you had yet to see any arguments here that contradicted you. I suggest this is because you're not bothering to read them (or, possibly, simply not understanding them, or else dismissing them out of hand because they tell you something you don't want to hear).

It is a bigger mistake to insist no such restrictions exist.

That's because you're making an elementary mistake in your reading of the statistics. Past trends are no guarantee of the future. Other factors play their part, as I have outlined above. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge the fuller picture, you will continue to make faulty assumptions about the development of streaming entertainment services. Incidentally, I guarantee you that these are mistakes that are not being made in the boardrooms of companies like Netflix.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Having re-read your post, I did misread the bit about the problems that more people streaming would cause. I apologise for that, I was trying to do about three things at once. :blush:. However, there is no reason to believe that the capacity problems you allude to will not be resolved as more people opt for streaming. We had a capacity problem here a while ago, which affected our on demand service. This was resolved with an upgrade in our area.

On the contrary to what you have said, I do not think that everyone is wedded to my idea of viewing. Clearly, they are not yet, but as shown by the BARB figures, the trend has already started. In particular, look at how people changed their viewing habits when Netflix was launched on Virgin Media.

You are right to point to existing capacity issues, but what is it that makes you think that these won't be resolved over the next decade?

I am certainly listening to alternative arguments, and I have tried to answer your points in this post.

However, many of the arguments presented by those who don't agree with me are wedded to the idea that none of the existing barriers will be broken down. All my contacts with younger people (below 40) indicate that they have either embraced, or started to embrace, much more streaming into their regular viewing habits. My thesis is simply based on the fact that any large scale change in this direction will be disastrous to commercial TV channels.

What I cannot understand is why anyone would think that TV channels could continue to function as normal despite such changes taking place. The fact that you personally don't want this change I understand, but it's what the majority think at the end of the day that will determine the future of TV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Exactly

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Old Boy, News discussing the power demands of the UK's internet infrastructure is here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-10222638.html

I'm pretty sure that's the same link that was previously contributed to this thread.

Ignore the slightly hysterical tone of the piece and concentrate on the one, cold, hard, unavoidable fact: At its current rate of expansion, the UK part of the Internet would soak up the entire national electricity generating capacity (as at 2015), within 20 years from now. Say what you like about how quickly ISPs can lay fibre; lack of electricity generating capacity is a far harder nut to crack. It is simply inconceivable that enough extra generating capacity could be brought on stream to power the size of Internet needed to support your vision of a 100% streamed on-demand news and entertainment system. By the time the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station comes on stream, for example, it will have taken at least 15 years from the time the project was first approved, to the first few megawatts being sent to the Grid. Other, smaller, conventional plants could be brought on stream more quickly, but enough to generate the 70 Terawatt-Hours per annum that the Internet is projected to require by 2035, at current rates of expansion? Absolutely no chance whatsoever.

Even if everyone wanted to consume their news and entertainment from a variety of on-demand, streamed platforms, it is simply not possible for that to be achieved within 20 years. The economics don't add up. The practicalities don't add up. It-will-not-happen.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thank you, Chris, that has thrown some light on why you believe that the future I have described cannot come about.

However, as with so many arguments on this thread, there is an assumption that we will still have the same problems in the future as we have now. New technologies will see us through in the end and there are innovations that no-one has yet thought of that will overcome issues that some believe will mean that ideas expressed on here can never come about.

For example, a quick look at the internet this morning revealed this interesting piece. Took me 3 minutes to find it.

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tech...dio-waves.html

This may or may not be how the problem is eventually overcome. The issues may alternatively be resolved by a system of demand dispatch or a whole host of other methods that are currently being investigated to resolve problems such as these.

To say that 'it will never happen' based on what we have and what we know now is not a credible position to take on its own. Sure, there's work to do, but we are talking about 20 years' time. Hell, we didn't have broadband 20 years' ago!

The problem you identify is a real one, but it will be overcome in the fairly near future.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, since there hasn't been any major breakthrough in Power Generation technology in the last 30-odd years, I would say you are being a tad optimistic...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It took you three minutes to find a link that doesn't address the problem, let alone propose a solution. Again, I suspect that you're not engaging with this issue any deeper than "I like it, therefore everyone will like it, and everyone's home will become like mine". You go on the Internet and look only as far as you think you need to, to find something which on first glance, appears to support your pre-conceived beliefs about the future.

Harvesting a few watts from stray radio transmissions is all very well, but the developers themselves see this as a means of powering small, low-power devices such as wireless sensors and security cameras. It isn't going to get anywhere near the 70+ terawatt-hours per annum that our national Internet infrastructure is projected to require within the next 20 years, at current rate of expansion.

You can't get around the simple, practical obstacle here: the only thing that can generate the kind of power needed to bring about your vision of the future is a power station. Actually, lots of power stations. Big ones. They are very expensive to build, and take years from planning to commissioning.

And here's one for you, Sherlock: the developers are mostly harvesting power from TV transmissions (presumably because these are the highest-powered and most widely dispersed).

What will happen to their experiments if all the TV transmitters are switched off, as you keep predicting?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm trying (not very successfully) to demonstrate that technological solutions become available when the demand is there to solve a problem.

You have presented a doomsday scenario, which is what the media tries to do all the time. You need to balance this with the facts.

Did you also read that Andrew Lord, head of optical research at BT and a visiting professor at Essex University, is insistent that scientists will come up with a solution. He reckons that storing information in large 'server farms', rather than transferring it, would take the strain off the network. The internet is not about to collapse and it has a lot of bandwidth left in it is what he says.

Additionally, BT is working with leading universities on new research to ensure future demand for the internet is met. A BT spokeswoman is reported to have said:

"The current generation of technology will exceed bandwidth needs for many years to come, but of course new technologies will be needed to cope with continued growth in demand further into the future.

"We're now working with leading universities and other global operators to kick off a new phase of research, ensuring that we move beyond the limitations of the current generation of technology to meet customers' demands in future decades.'

I am not saying there are no problems, but we will resolve them. Not many years ago, we were told that fossil fuels would run out in 2050. Not the case now, though, is it, with more exploration discovering new oil fields, the advent of fracking, etc.

Just because we cannot do something now does not mean that we will not be doing it in the future. The world will move on, as it always does.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You're simply unable - or unwilling - to deal with the scale of the problem.

None of these experts foresees a crippling problem, because nobody who knows anything about the subject, seriously believes the UK will have switched off broadcast TV and transferred our entire news and entertainment provision to IP-based services, not now, nor in 10 or 20 years time.

Throughout this thread you have been predicting the end of linear TV based on nothing more than your fondness for the alternative.

Others have pointed out to you that:

- a linear TV schedule provides least friction for a busy consumer with limited appetite to make conscious choices;
- any live event is, and will always be, by its very nature, broadcast according to a linear schedule;
- one-way transmission by satellite or terrestrial transmitter is a vastly more efficient way of delivering high-bandwidth content to large numbers of people simultaneously. This requires scheduled broadcast, even if the end user stores transmissions (TiVo or similar) for later consumption on-demand;
- scheduled broadcast puts large numbers of people within reach of advertisers simultaneously;
- it also increases the number of simultaneous views of content, allowing for popular shows to achieve the prized "water-cooler moment" that further publicises them;
- all of which is essential, given the high cost of quality, original TV.
- and, not forgetting, the hard fact that the internet's projected future bandwidth and energy requirement is already enormous, without the added burden of putting our entire TV system onto it.

These are the facts. Nobody wants the future you keep pushing, in sufficient numbers to make it happen. On-demand streaming has its place in the mix, but that's all it will be for the foreseeable future.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If BBC One, Two, ITV, CH4 & Ch5 all broadcast high quality programmes all the time, then I would agree that everyone would probably just sit down in front of their tellies and never even think of words like Netflix, or boxsets again. But in the real world that's not the case.

The other day, a few people quipped when I said that 7 million viewers still watch depressing crap like Eastenders at Christmas as evidence than an all linear world is as strong as ever. There are over 60 million people in this country.... most are choosing not to waste their lives with this rubbish being served up like cold turkey by the broadcasters.

I think this is as much, if not more, a discussion about the quality of tv, rather than whether it be linear, non-linear, streamed or whatever. As long as you can still watch something on the box, most people won't care whether it's broadcast, streamed etc.

If the world were to stay all linear, then I'd agree with Chris that the traditional broadcast model is the way to go. But it's not and another major factor today is mobile. People are consuming content on various devices and in various places. Some of this is linear, traditional tv channels. But many of it is not.

I won't even go into the "mad" professor's arguments in that article, he is mixing together and confusing power consumption with bandwidth.

But on the subject of bandwidth, I present to you one word "multicast", sounds sexy, doesn't it?:)

On cable at least, VM will eventually go down the multicast route, meaning everything will become streamed aka video on demand (VOD) including linear "broadcast" channels, except they won't be broadcast.... they'll be VOD streams instead.

There will come a point soon when all the big media companies and telcos decide how they are going to deliver content to consumers in an increasingly non-linear world. It will be the mother of all bust ups, and we've already seen early rounds of fighting between them in recent years, especially in America.

As I've said before, I think we'll end up with a small core group of linear channels, but everything, at least on cable, will become VOD.

The delivery methods will all merge. So you may be watching a show on a mobile device while walking home and transfer your watching of that show or "channel" to your main tv when you get home. It is quite possible that to have watched that show it may have been delivered to you (or broadcast) using several different methods, but you won't notice any difference.

The change will be that linear and non-linear watching of tv will become so seamless, you will not notice whether it's a "proper" channel or not.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Was a bit too concise in what I wrote - what I meant was that terrestrial and satellite delivery of linear channels are likely to persist for a long time and I think will still be a significant part of viewing in ten years, say, especially amongst older viewers. However, ultimately everything is likely to move to IP or its successors.

You're unlikely to get corporations investing so far ahead of demand, except for oddities like Google with their fibre service in the US. While there will obviously be technical hurdles to overcome I don't believe there are barriers that will prevent the bandwidth that is needed from being available at the time it is required.

It's also something that has been regularly pointed to as being the solution for many years - BBC R&D were doing experiments in TV multicast delivery across ISPs back in 2000ish - but whose practical realities have made it very difficult to deploy. Increases in bandwidth are perhaps likely to make it irrelevant before the issues with multicast can be resolved.

I share your desire for an intelligent TV that can personalise a night's viewing for its watchers but it's going to be very difficult to achieve, primarily due to the cooperation required between the stakeholders. TV content owners are desperate not to see the same thing happen as in print where the majority of the money, control and data have ended up in the hands of Facebook and Google. Because of this they want to control streaming services as their own fully independent fiefdoms.

There's also the issue of who would invest in developing such a service - TV and STB manufacturers have tiny margins that can't be stretched, old-school media companies have typically been terrible at investing in technology and spend all their time in endless committees or fighting when they do try and work together (witness YouView), while telecoms companies don't really have the vision for it. When we do eventually get such a service it will probably be from the usual Internet giants with serious data mining abilities and in the aftermath of a massive battle with content owners.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The other day, a few people quipped when I said that 7 million viewers still watch depressing crap like Eastenders at Christmas as evidence than an all linear world is as strong as ever. There are over 60 million people in this country.... most are choosing not to waste their lives with this rubbish being served up like cold turkey by the broadcasters.

Reply to Horizon
Are viewing figures counted on the average people per household or per household. I'm not sure but that could change the 7 million viewers stat.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Can some of the decline in the terrestrial channels viewing numbers not be down to a larger range of available linear channels ? So in fact people are still watching linear however spread across a larger number of channels.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Very true. I'd say the rise of people who are online gaming and those who spend hours per day on Social Media also impact TV viewing figures.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's a count of people. Have a look on barb.co.uk if you want to know how they do it.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Cheers. Will have a look

Cord-cutting just a US phenomena
 

"Despite the continued presence of Netflix and other over-the-top services – if taken as an operator Netflix would now be Europe’s third largest operator behind Liberty Global and Sky Europe – pay-TV continues grow with little talk of cord cutting as is the case in the United States. “The appetite for pay-TV services is increasing quite dramatically,” said Keen. “The quality of services, technically and content-wise has been increasing dramatically. People want to see it and have been taking out the subs.”
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...e-opportunity/

US is a very expensive TV market which does not enjoy the same competition as European markets do. The average monthly revenue per user in the US is $86 v $29 in Europe. It is the high cost in the US that is driving cord-cutting and this is not a feature of European markets.
I'm not however saying that the live TV/on-demand TV ratio is not moving of on-demand content; it is.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If the upcoming audience is anything to judge by then linear channels should be worried:

Linky

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

We have had this argument before with a well respected CF member and Linear channels are here to stay and will still be around when l have gone the way of the dodo despite what the doomsayers of CF say.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But on what basis do you say that, Den? Your view of the future is only going to happen if most viewers choose to keep watching broadcast linear TV much as they do now, and the quickening trend to other means of viewing (on demand/streaming services) is arrested sharply in the very near future.

In the end, you have to look at the economics of it all, as well as the growing impatience of people who are demanding instant gratification and will not wait for their programmes of choice to show up on the TV schedules and have their viewing interrupted by commercials.

Maybe that decline could be mitigated by channels reorganising how they broadcast their programmes. If they did this 'cinema style' by showing uninterrupted and better quality home grown material (because all the the good stuff they could procure would be snapped up by the streaming services), and having these good programmes followed by commercials, shorter programmes, trailers, more commercials and then another good quality programme, this might keep things going. I do think people are more tolerant of commercials between programmes rather than interrupting programmes.

Even then, I think the prevalence of broadcast linear viewing will be much less in the future, and I seriously doubt whether such broadcasting will be economically viable in a couple of decades.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Well, it's easy to be negative, Chris. You have put all of these supposed problems in the way, without it even crossing your mind that throughout history, problems preventing change have been overcome.

I find it difficult to understand why you think that 'busy people' would not want to use their limited free time to watch something worthwhile. The description you paint is of a nation of semi-comatose people watching dazed-like at any junk that is thrown at them. I sincerely hope that most of us are better than that!

You say that any live event will always be watched via broadcast TV, completely ignoring the fact that such events can be streamed live.

If you ever watch Netflix or Amazon, you will see new series advertised before they appear, just like films at the cinema. So you can still share these experiences, when they first appear, with your friends.

I could go on, but I think the trend towards streaming and on demand viewing is already towards these methods of viewing and this is set to grow substantially.

I do not doubt for one moment that the viewing figures for broadcast TV are still healthy, but existing trends should make it obvious that things cannot remain as they are for much longer.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

These "supposed problems" are facts, evidenced throughout this thread with statistics and the publicly-stated views of industry professionals. I have nether the time nor the will to collate the data again - not least because you wouldn't (or couldn't) engage with it first time round.

All you have been able to provide in response is, in effect, "something will turn up".

That's fine if all you want to do is go on feeling good about what you already believe, especially when the topic is TV because, let's face it, the world won't end however we consume our entertainment 50 years from now.

However, it's not fine in a topic-based discussion forum where the whole point of the exercise is to bring information and ideas to the topic so they can be discussed.

This much is true.

Did it never occur to you that at least half the "problems" with moving to 100% VOD aren't even problems? They are positive reasons *not* to make the switch, not negative reasons preventing the development of something desirable.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I still don't see this as a problem. Those kids are watching programmes on their iPads/phones because they are bored. They probably don't have a telly of their own yet in their bedrooms, like many people of my generation did, and it is much cheaper for parents to pay an £8.99 for Netflix rather than fork out money for a telly in the kids room and potentially extra set top boxes and multi room subscriptions. 2 tenneagers with 1 extra box each is another £20 on a monthly bill, as opposed to a shared Netflix account.

OB, seeing as you continue to ignore everyone's opinion because it does not fit in with your plans, and still disregard Chris's well worded with decent links on the technical obstacle arguments, I will come back to the debate with this statement - which you can ignore, disregard and refute as you see fit.

I have yet to see you provide anything which shows how people are planning to overcome these technical obstacles. If you have posted them, I apologize for missing them and can you please post the links again so I can continue to make an informed opinion on this.

As these kids and teenagers get older and move out (over the next 10-20 years) no doubt they will then buy a decent TV which will still be coming with free view. Whether that is streamed or not is neither here nor there, it will still be a linear schedule. People will not stop watching linear schedules just because they are impatient and want on demand content only. Having grown up watching what will most likely become an ad laden Netflix, these kids will have watched a lot of its content and unskippable ads and could well be bored of its back catalogue. What do they do then? Binge watch the new exclusives? Awesome, that wastes a few nights. What then? Do the same with Amazon Prime? Okay, that wastes about 6 months worth of binge watched content. What then? Watch nothing because all the content from fta broadcasters or paid content provider is not available to binge watch on demand? No, they will watch what is placed in front of them.

Things may well change, but I still don't see it happening in my lifetime. There are simply too many people who are happy with the way linear tv works.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

These are not my 'plans', Harry, and contrary to what some have been saying on here, the end of linear TV is not 'what I want'. It is mere speculation on my part, inviting discussion, and it is based on what I see as a drift away from conventional method of viewing, with the growth of streaming services.

I'm sure that you are at least half right about existing habits of teenagers, but when they settle down and have their own TV, I can't see them putting up with how linear TV works with all those tempting on demand alternatives present for the taking (and decidedly cheaper than linear premium TV channels). As I have said before, the margin of profitability of these channels is tight, and it would not take a huge audience drop to reduce advertising revenues and force channels off the air.

I have listened to the detractors from this argument, and Chris has made some good points about existing levels of capacity. I am not sufficiently technical to be able to rebuff some of the points he makes but what I can say with a fair degree of confidence is that a way through those problems will be found.

You can criticise me if you like for not coming up with a full technical resume on how the problems Chris mentions can be overcome, but frankly, that is not up to me. This is a discussion, not a business plan! I note, Harry, that you continue to tell us that Netflix will be sporting commercials, despite direct denials by the company, and so your arguments on this subject, with respect, are not so robust either.

In relation to content, I think it is becoming obvious that in years to come, the streaming companies will be picking up exclusively the best programmes available from the US and elsewhere, leaving nothing but the scraps for the broadcast linear channels. So they will have to make or commission more programmes of their own. There are financial implications there that the broadcasters will have to assess very carefully.

Now some will say that Sky's new deal with Showtime proves the opposite, but of course it does not. We are not talking about the now, we are talking about the future. Ultimately, it is the companies with the global reach that will outbid the likes of Sky and our terrestrials. Sky's exclusive deal with Showtime may well prove to be one of its last.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well said OB..............:tu:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I am afraid you will have to show me some evidence of how the internet/electricity issues and consistently high BB speeds fast enough for everyone in the country to receive the uninterrupted world of streaming services you envisage, will be overcome. Netflix and the others, must of already got their heads together and hired teams of people to be working on solving this very problem, other wise how else will they rule the televisual world in 10 years time?

Obviously I can not find any thing to back up my opinion with regards ads on Netflix, how ever, I dread to think how much Netflix will cost in 10 years time without them. Amazon have ad's on their main website, and also make more money from their main business model, so they could in theory, subsidise Amazon prime as ad free - if they choose to. Equally, I can not see them turning down ads to keep costs down. Also, you have seen me state Sky are showing ads on some of their OD portfolio and others have stated other broadcasters are showing adverts on their online offerings.

So I think its safe to say, Netflix et al, will eventually have to follow suit or risk losing out on extra money their direct rivals will be taking otherwise. How will they make up that lost money? By putting customer subscriptions up. Don't forget the more Netflix etc buy and/or the more their costs go up.

With regards streaming services, and your thoughts of Netflix etc picking up exclusive rights to the best programmes from the US and elsewhere. I assume you mean they will buy worldwide exclusive rights for their content? How much do you think that will cost without them, without taking vast amounts of ad money for global, un-skippable ads? Equally, would it then be finacially feasible for them to not be advertising to a global market, imagine the money they will turn down. These are serious issues that need to be addressed in your proposed world.

Even if what you envisage is true, considering most of the studios already own most of the production companies, and already make their own programmes, it is unlikely they will continue to give their best programmes away to the opposition.

If Netflix et al continue to grow into the monster you imagine they will become, what is to stop the content owners of the linear channels (who in your visions of the future world will be going out of business) from with holding any or all of their content from Netflix et al? Thus leaving Netflix et al, with only their minor amounts of exclusive content?

Incidently, how much do think Netflix alone will cost in 10 years and how much would you be willing to pay for a world of, say, 10 streaming services?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Deary me! While noting that you don't have evidence to back up your views, you expect me to quote chapter and verse on all your perceived obstacles to my vision of the future!! Once again, this is a discussion, not a scientific paper and everyone is welcome to disagree with me on my views. All of us have views on many things, without necessarily having all the statistical evidence and hard facts to hand.

Chris and yourself in particular have been pointing out that there are problems to achieving a complete change from broadcast linear TV to streaming. I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean that these problems cannot be overcome. Indeed, a £1.5m project was set up recently with a view to increasing network capacity 'by maximising spectral use and by combining appropriate digital technique with analogue and optical signal processing'. It is suggested that by developing equipment for use in optical fibre networks we can reduce energy consumption by more than half.

I am not denying for one moment that serving up the necessary bandwidth will be a challenge, but it is a challenge that tech companies and research groups are racing to beat. It is not for me to find the answers to these issues but I will say that the tech world appears to be pretty confident that the problems identified will be solved.

I remember that there were siren voices authoritatively saying on these forums a few years ago that VM didn't have sufficient bandwidth to carry all those HD channels. Remember what happened? VM simply created more bandwidth. There are times when people can't see their way through problems that are not theirs to solve.

I am becoming more confident with time that the days of broadcast linear TV are numbered. It is old fashioned and timewasting and I believe a sufficient number of people will eventually grow tired of it, rendering linear channels uneconomic. I think what you need to demonstrate is that viewers will not progressively be attracted to a more efficient means of viewing to the point that advertising revenues are reduced, rendering the present arrangements unviable.

As far as ads on Netflix are concerned, I think such a development would put me and many others off the service altogether. Netflix seem to be able to provide a good range of films and TV series for a pretty reasonable subscription at the moment, although I concede that the price will have to increase over time. Despite their denials, I guess they may introduce ads for those who cannot afford to pay a higher bill for the service, but either way, I think the new streaming offers coming through will be an attractive alternative to existing bundled channels. Currently you can get Freeview, a Now TV Entertainment Pass, Netflix and Amazon for under £20 per month. What the choice for sports fans will be in the future, we will have to wait and see, but I think Sky will be in competition with the global players who have the resources to bid high and provide their wider audiences with cheaper sport.

It is quite possible that more studios will decide to set up their own streaming sites (as HBO have done in the US). However, there will always be sufficient content for Netflix to procure (particularly films), and it will continue to make its own shows. Other content providers will want to make their shows easily accessible via the likes of Netflix (maybe after an initial exclusivity period) to maximise income generation.

I have never said that the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five will be 'going out of business'. Where did that come from? They will simply complete their migration to streaming services, either through i-Player, ITV Player, All 4 and Demand 5, and/or by collaborating together on one site.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well said OB, excellent reply......:clap:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well OB, you certainly expect others to serve up chapter and verse to counter your thoughts on the future. Fair(ish) comment regards the Netflix advertising, but you have conceded they may well have to introduce ad's to reduce costs, so not sure what else I need to post on the matter.

I don't believe I have ever asked you to make this a scientific discussion, I have just asked you to back up your statements. I have admitted I can't back up my Netflix ad claims, but you have not backed up your statements with any links.

There is no doubt companies are trying to solve the internet/elecrticity problem as it stands, but I am not aware of anyone trying to fix things so every person in the country to watch what they want, when they want it. Perhaps you would care to expand on this statement you psoted "I am not denying for one moment that serving up the necessary bandwidth will be a challenge, but it is a challenge that tech companies and research groups are racing to beat. It is not for me to find the answers to these issues but I will say that the tech world appears to be pretty confident that the problems identified will be solved" and tell me which companies are racing to beat the problem and who is saying they are confident. That will back your argument up pretty well.

Before I go too much further, if linear channels do struggle for advertising in future, what is stop them put the prices up of their content and movies they are going to continue to sell to Netflix (as you suggest Netflix will still buy content), to counter the loss of potential lost ad revenue? Also, what would be the point of Universal (for example) launch a streaming service and still sell some of it's best content to Netflix? Surely that will make their streaming offering less valuable, whilst still making a competitors stronger? Even if Netflix and whoever, come to an agreement, what is to stop the linear based TV company only allowing Netflix 1 episode a week after the channel that owns it has shown it live on linear TV, as has happened with better call saul?

As to whats stopping people not migrating to streaming services, not a great deal at the moment. However, in 20 years time, it will be extremely expensive to what we pay now for the same content. Also, don't forget Now TV is a linear based streaming service, and that can not be used to help your case, because it is, linear TV, not an exclusively On Demand provider.

Now, pray tell, how many streaming services you foresee there being, and how much it will cost us. Please do answer, you have not done so on the few occasions I have asked.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Now TV offers catch up for 28 days on current shows and box sets of previous shows with longer viewing windows.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB's argument in favour of exclusive VOD is "it stands to reason", and his counter to the arguments against it is "something will turn up".

OB's view isn't really an argument. It's a statement of cheerful optimism. And ultimately, who can argue with that? :)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I guess this would come under the future of linear tv - BT to lose FOX from their tv service at end of this month.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

No surprise there as we all know who Fox are owned by....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sorry PB, I don't fully understand the post, or quite why you posted it. I have alluded to its on demand content by saying it is not an exclusive on demand provider.
It also follows a linear tv schedule, and will be for many years to come. Whilst it still uses linear tv, surely it can not be classed as a threat to the future for linear tv channels?

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:52 ----------

Who indeed can Chris. I dislike the fact I allow myself to be drawn back into this thread so often, but it is nice to have a discussion with OB, even if I would be better banging my against a wall😉

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It offers box sets and catchup TV content from Pay TV channels

This is where I see the real attack on linear TV; the Pay TV channels. Freeview linear TV channels have a long future. But it's content that is mainly shown on the pay TV channels that streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Now TV are catering for, and why people such as myself are well served by Freeview and the streaming services mentioned above.

This is why your statement:

doesn't reflect the bigger picture with regard to the whole linear channel debate, which Now TV is playing a big part in regards to linear Pay TV.

This is why Sport is being held back in regards to fair price streaming options; it's to keep sports fans tied into high priced pay TV twelve month contracts.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Spot on PB......

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Okay, but this is a debate about the future of linear tv channels, not just pay tv linear channels. Considering freeview shows the vast majority of the nation's favourite shows, I am not sure how your statement helps the case for the reasons as to why this debate is rumbling on, but I may be missing something in your statement.

I am probably wrong, but are you also saying Now tv is going to threaten Sky tv in the future, or (again) am I mis-reading your statement?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

CBS says 111.9 mln avg viewers watched CBS's coverage of Super Bowl 50.

More to say later....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Are not linear pay TV channels, still linear TV channels?

I was simply explaining that you hadn't understood the full implications of Now TV in this debate, with your statement, "Now TV is a linear based streaming service," You failed to understand that it is much more than that. I have never used it as a linear TV channel. But I have used it in exactly the same way that I use Netflix and Amazon Prime and chosen when I wanted to watch a current TV show within the one month window.

I am not for or against the original premise of this debate.

My own personal view is that linear TV will exist for a long time (both pay and terrestrial), but streaming services will affect pay TV the most, and although they will in no way disappear, they will see a decline in subscriptions. If the sports 'screw over' ever gets sorted an sports becomes available at a reasonable price in decent quality, the pay TV linear channel subscriptions decline would be even greater.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Pay TV is, of course, still linear TV. In text you highlighted, it should have read "but this is a debate about the future of ALL linear TV channels"

Thanks for the clarification PB. You are correct, I had not factored in the catch up service. For me, that is no different than the recording option on the STB, and I can keep it longer than a month. For £18 a month, I am more that happy to stick with the Sky family HD package.

I do agree with your statement that Sky, VM etc will lose a fair few viewers over time, but they will still be around for a long time.

Not sure about the sports though. If Sky and BT ever stop paying over the odds for football rights, and the price of sport drops, I think people will want to watch it on the most stable platform and that will be via Sky, VM etc.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think if we look to the States and as with all things we follow at some point, I do agree with the earlier remark that it is pay tv linear channels most at threat here.

None of us care what channel broadcasts what show, the loyalty to a particular channel is long gone assuming it ever existed at all. But we all want good shows. The increasing cord cutting in the states has shown that Americans, at least for now, still watch the main broadcast channels but supplement them with a streaming service. This country will follow suit.

I believe Now TV is a defensive move by Sky to protect its business not threaten it. If people are going to cut the cord/ditch the dish, Now TV is positioned to pick up some of that business. A very clever move by Sky.

The Superbowl viewing figures show that if you have the right programme, linear viewing can still work. But I believe this will become ever more diminishing in the future. Linear tv viewing, that is.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Pay TV channels and FTA channels are both linear, but the effects of streaming services, in my view, will affect them differently.

I may have missed it, but I've seen nothing to say that we can't discuss this difference, even though it seems to suit you to want to lump them all together.

And it seems as if you still don't get the full aspect of Now TV; it also contains many box sets. And it is not tied to a 12 month contract.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thank you PB, I do get the full aspect of Now Tv. Just because I did not envisage anyone using Now TV as an on demand service only, does not make me ignorant of all things Now TV. I am not sure why you are highlighting box sets, again. I alluded to them in my last reply to OB, and acknowledged them when you mentioned them a couple of posts ago. Just to be clear (for the third time), I am aware Now TV have on demand services available. I am also very aware you can cancel at anytime, but for me, the service I receive is better value for money. Perhaps you do not fully understand all the aspects of Sky. They have hundreds of box sets available for long periods, offer catch up tv, have many channels, and the ability to record whole series in full HD and keep them for as long as I want, without having to worry about buffering at anytime.

You are more than welcome to discuss the differences between linear pay TV and linear fta TV, but the discussion I, and many others have had, with OB were about linear tv as a whole, hence me posting as I have done. Whether or not I am person to discuss the differences between linear pay TV and linear fta tv with, is for you to decide. As I stated in my previous post, I agree with you that pay TV will lose subscriptions, but linear TV (both pay and fta) will still be here for many a long year. So on my part, there is very little discuss.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, basically I agree with this. Sky now seem to have taken stock and realised that the trend will be away from linear broadcast channels In favour of streaming. Although, as Harry said, Now TV allows viewers to watch the channels it offers live, I have never used that part of the service.

It is true that the Superbowl attracted a huge number of viewers for linear TV, but then, there was no alternative if you wanted to watch it as it happened. However, in time, the streaming of live events will be the norm.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I usually stay out of this debate. Mainly because I think linear TV is here for a very long time, but I also know streaming services are becoming more and more popular, especially for content normally exclusive to pay linear TV. And despite what you think, pay and FTA linear channels are being affected differently and to deny that in any discussion on this topic is artificially limiting it's scope.

I think it's far too soon to call on this whole linear/streaming debate, so I follow out of interest.

This time I just posted because you made an incorrect statement:

Now TV is one of the services that in part could and is used as an alternative to linear TV. I use it that way. Are you saying I am wrong in the way I use it? Or I really don't understand how I'm really using it?

But I'd forgotten how much you like to pontificate rather than accept the case pointed out to you.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Where have I have ever said I disagree that linear to will be effected by streaming services? OB has an opinion that linear tv will be extinct within 20 years, I disagree with that opinion. As stated in previous quotes (if you ever bother to read them correctly) I have never disagreed that linear pay tv will lose subscribers. Do please show me the quotes where I have denied this. If I remember correctly, you have put words in my mouth more than once, so I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find a quote. If it exists, I will happily apologize.

How am I artificially limiting the scope of this discussion? Have I said I won't discuss anything with you? I have simply said I agree that some people will cut the cord, but all linear tv will survive. How can I expand on a discussion if I agree with main part of the discussion?

With regards my statement on now tv, how have accepted not accepted what is "pointed out to me"? I have freely admitted I was unaware people could use it solely as an on demand provider, again please quote where I have not. How many times do you want to bring it up? It's getting rather regions now. I would never suggest how you use now tv is wrong, just like I don't think anyone using the linear side of it is wrong.

As for pontificating, I have freely admitted where I was ignorant in the use of now tv, have agreed with statements you have made regarding the effect on demand services could have on pay linear tv, and tried to highlight how my discussion with OB is different that my discussion with you.

It is your good self, who is continuing to try and have a discussion on a topic you have brought into the discussion (which anyone is entitled to so) and which I pretty much agree with you on and it is you who is not really taking then taking discussion forward by not responding directly to many of my posts. Instead,you have gone back to the original reason as to you joined this discussion (and most welcome you are) and have for the third or fourth time, highlighted your thoughts on linear tv. Just in case you missed my previous statements, I agree with your thoughts on the subject.

As such, it is with the greatest respect to you, that it is you wholikes to pontificate, rather more than (or equally as much, if you prefer) than me.

Now, having said all of the above, how would like to continue with the discussion and move it forward?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Earlier this morning, before you had posted, I had a feeling I hadn't expressed something correctly but wasn't able to change it at the time.

You have indeed said that pay TV will be affected differently. And I knew that when I posted. I was trying to say that you don't seem to want to discuss those acknowledged separate implications in the thread, but want to lump all linear TV into one within this discussion. The way I worded it was incorrect, suggesting that you didn't think that FTA and Pay TV will be affected, which was incorrect as you had already agreed with that. It was my bad phraseology that caused the confusion for which I apologise.

Having said all that. I simply replied to a part of one of your post because you had misunderstood the full implications of Now TV and the part it plays in the linear versus streaming debate.

You didn't seem to get that. So I'm simply going to leave it there. Sorry, but I have no interest in replying to your rather long winded posts on this particular thread.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Alas, PB I did seem to "get it". Unfortunately you wanted to have a discussion on the differences between linear pay TV and non pay linear TV. I agreed with your views, and you did not seem to get that and wanted to keep mentioning it. It's a shame you no longer want to have a discussion on it, I was quite happy to contribute as much as I could - even if it would have been a rather limited contribution.

As for my long winded posts, I am sorry if they have been too long for you. I will remember in future to keep my posts short and simple for you.

---------- Post added at 09:52 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

And how many streaming services do our American cousins have OB? How much does it cost them? How many do services do you think will launch over here, and how much do you think they will cost?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

These are the best sites Harry.

http://uk.pcmag.com/netflix/71265/fe...s-best-for-you

I don't know how many of these are likely to launch here that we don't already have, but the UK is a natural choice for them, I would have thought.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Maybe they will be. Consider the amount of services and the prices though OB. There can not be that much content we can not get over here currently. If you exclude Netflix and Amazon from that list, the cost for the few American services not on that website, right now is $59.96, and I doubt that includes the HD streaming service. Imagine the cost in 20 years!! That must be roughly £40.00 over here. A lot of people know how much more we pay than the Americans for a number of products or services (Itunes songs, considerably less Netflix content compared to prices paid in the States and last I checked WWE network worked out more expensive over here too, this names just a few of the rip offs) so I can not imagine we will be offered a better price for these services either.

If people want the same content they currently get on Sky VM etc (and I can't see why they won't) I simply can not see why they would pay considerably more for much the same content - even if it does ever get to the stage where everyone in the country (and all the various Islands around the UK) can watch what they want when they want it.

Also, lets say by some miracle we get all of these services they won't all be on one box (everyone will have a box to sell and TV companies will sign exclusive deals), imagine how much more of a faff it will be to change from one streaming service to the next.

Would you be happy to a minimum of £40 (based on my loose calculations of the American prices from the link you posted) to get much the same content you can currently get via Now TV for the price you currently pay?

Not everything that happens in the states happens over here. For a start, netflix don't offer dvd rental. Their love and propensity for guns is mind boggling, the law system is terrible, corrupt and much more racist than ours, supersize fast food ranges failed over here, their beef is not allowed over here, in fact most of their food industry is, effectively, controlled in parliament by former big wigs of big companies (check out a film called food inc) who ensure their old companies get the best deals, the health system is terrible (even though the Tories are systematically trying to kill the NHS) and let's not forget the chocolate is generally horrible out there too.;)

Just because things happen in the States, it does not automatically mean it will happen over here - even if logic does dictate that way.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Wow, you've covered quite a bit in that post, Harry!

First of all, let me agree with your last two paragraphs and I will say that I agree with all that, except the bit about the NHS! (Under Labour, we saw the scandal of Mid Staffs with people drinking out of vases because they were so desperate for water, and the spectacle of Andy Burnham trying to cover it up rather than address it, increased privatisation through PFIs which were bad value for money etc). Compare that with increased investment for the NHS under the Tories and their striving to give the public a better 7 day per week service. I find your perspective on all this, and more relevantly, your pessimism over the advance of streaming services difficult to comprehend.

Back to your first paragraph, and more on topic, I think the jury is out on whether streaming services will be more expensive than existing broadcast services. I envisage that there will be for many more decades to come a BBC/ITV/Channel 4/Channel 5 presence, but access will be via their individual i-players or combined streaming site. The BBC will continue to provide a 'free' service as long as the licence fee survives, and the other channels are likely to provide a choice between a free uninterruptable advertisement ridden offer, or an advert free subscriber based service. Many viewers (myself included) will not watch any platform that forces you to watch commercials and so a subscriber option would be necessary if profits are to be maximised and the whole venture does not go under.

What the other streaming service companies will do is a matter for conjecture. As you know, Netflix have pledged never to have commercials on their site (although you don't believe them) and Amazon don't feature commercials either. Even Now TV doesn't have adverts on their streaming services (except of course on the smaller live TV part of their offering).

The price of Netflix is increasing for new subscribers, but where these price increases will end is anyone's guess. While there is healthy competition between the various providers, maybe the prices will remain fairly reasonable.

Although people like me will probably go for as many of these streaming services as is sensible, those of more modest means might well pimp around a bit, sticking with one service for a while and then changing for another service, benefitting by access to maximum content across a multitude of platforms at minimum cost.

You mention Sky, but you know, there's not an awful lot on their channels (apart from the premium sport and films channels) that is worth watching anymore. This week, Sky 1, for example, is showing the following programmes that I would watch:

Chris Ryan's Strike Back (already seen it)
Pride and Glory (film)
Stan Lee's Lucky Man

And that's it! Pretty bad for a pay TV channel, don't you think?

For me, streaming services are always going to provide better quality choices from a much wider list of programmes than pay TV (excluding premium channels) currently provides.

You certainly have a point about the fact that you currently need different boxes for different services, which is why I keep saying that our new Tivo boxes need to address this problem. Virgin need to embrace all these various streaming services on their box to set them apart from the rest. People would be quick to realise the convenience this gives them.

Currently, I access my streaming services from Tivo, my smart Sony TV and my Roku streaming stick. I am extremely pleased with the variety of quality programmes that I can now access by that means, plus the recordings I take from broadcast channels.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You should bear in mind that many of Sky 1 and Sky Living's best shows are US dramas and they have been on a mid season break in the US. Some of them have just started to air again, but others still haven't. I'm guessing Sky are holding back on the ones that have started, to give them a less interrupted rum.

What I'm saying, is because of Sky's reliance on US drama, this time of the year is not the best time to really get a feel for Sky's output, show wise.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That is a fair point, PB, but the number of times I watch Sky programmes has been reducing over time. It no longer represents good value for me (except for Sky Atlantic, which of course we can only subscribe to via Now TV) and this is why I have been reconsidering the TV services I subscribe to of late.

I used to record five or six programmes a week from Sky 1 but now it's down to a trickle.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Whether you watch much on them or not I believe if you check BARB you'll find they are some of the best watched pay channels.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Apologies for deleting the politics, because as you say, it is off topic, and I am taking up enough space.

You may think the jury is out on the cost of streaming services, but as it stands in the States (based on your link), it is very expensive just to get anywhere near the content we get from Sky etc from just a few of the most popular streaming services at this precise moment.

People may well pick and choose from the various streaming services, but if I was in charge of a streaming company, I would want a very constant stream of income coming into my business. How could any company survive if it's sole income comes when the people who like their streaming offering only intermittently pay £8.99 a month? It simply can not happen. If we follow your logic, then the vast majority of people will have to take the ad free option. This will have to happen in your idea of the future, because the companies will need that ad revenue to give them their guaranteed monthly income. The streaming company will then have to decide how much more money they get through advertising, compared to the £120 (12 x £10 a month) they will get from a paying punter like yourself. I imagine there will be a massive gap between the money the free service gets compared to what you pay, and that gap will be lost revenue - pure and simple, they are not a charity after all. That lost revenue will have to come from somewhere. If they don't allow advertising, it will only come from increased subscription.

Lets say your idea works though, don't forget the more the services vie for peoples money, the more exclusives they have to produce. That will raise costs more and more. That will then more ads for the free service to cover the costs, and a same amount will have to be added for subscriptions. It will be easier for each streaming service to get £10 a month from 5 companies paying £2 each per ad, than it will be to get an extra £10 a month from you. I may be missing something completely obvious from these scenarios (and I welcome your thoughts negating mine) but I don't see how it won't end up with one of these scenarios. Either way, subscriptions will very be expensive without ad's.

I am not sure how you don't get ad's on Now TV - you are lucky if you don't. A quick FFW through the latest catch up episodes of Elementary, 100 Code, Madam Sectretary, The Knick and the last episode of Blue Bloods all had ads at the start and around the 30 min mark. A league of their own only had ads at the start. (Elemantary, A league of their own, 100 code, Blue Bloods and Madam Secretary are all on the featured page of Sky Catch up). As I have stated before Amazon have ad's on their website and, like Sky, are obviously heavily subsiding their streaming services. Most likely so they can get a loyal customer base before unleashing plenty of ads on the services, but I know (and am happy for) you to disagree with my thoughts on this.

You also mention about streaming services offering more variety than pay TV providers. As I have asked before, what would Netflix do if they lost all their back catalogue because all the other content owners wanted exclusive rights to their content (including their films)?

I am happy to have streaming services in the world, and you will never get them all on one box, regardless of what you think VM should do. Thankfully, I can still afford Netflix and it still provides great value, and could afford Amazon it I wanted. I just don't think they will kill off liner TV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think Sky One and living have got some decent shows.

The Blacklist
Blindspot
Scandal (good political conspiracy show, despite it's stupid name)
Madam Secretary (another political/conspiracy drama which has upped the action in S2)

Then they have most of the superhero stuff which is good non-serious knock-about entertainment (Netflix takes care of the grittier side of that very well)

Arrow
The Flash
Supergirl

They've also got the rights to Limitless.

I can't off-hand think of another broadcaster that I watch as much

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You question how streaming services can survive on £8.99 per month subscriptions, even though Netflix are doing so now! As far as people flitting in and out of the service is concerned, they can deter such practices by charging an annual fee, as Amazon do.

The streaming services with commercials that won't fast forward tend to be provided by our terrestrials and our pay TV services. I think the model used by the big streaming companies in future will be mainly subscription based or pay per view.

I don't agree with you on the comparison of content between what is on Sky and what is on the streaming services. How, for example, can you say that Sky has more than the UK version of Netflix? I have picked out so much from Netflix that I want to see, I doubt I'll ever get round to exhausting that list, and they are adding stuff all the time, with the added bonus of no reality shows!

I don't understand your comment about advertising on Amazon - but I get Amazon Prime Instant Video, and I can assure you that there are no commercials on there!

As for Now TV, I think you are referring to the broadcast TV part of it, which of course does contain adverts as it is the same as tuning into the channels via satellite or cable. However, the main part (and purpose) of Now TV is for the streaming of videos, and all of this is ad free. If the streaming service companies were to bombard us with unskippable ads, people would be put off and they would look for alternatives. The Sky catch up service is a 'free' add-on for their broadcast channels and this is why there are commercials on it.

The search will be on in earnest for exclusives, and the streaming services will sucking everything up and leave nothing for our broadcast TV channels, which presumably explains the recent trend towards buying up studios and their newly found obsession with their new dramas.

As for what would happen if Netflix lost all their content... I think our terrestrials are more worried about such an eventuality than Netflix!!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sorry Old Boy but that's a silly comparison , Netflix offers loads of content but as a Sky or VM subscriber you have access over the course of a year to far more content whether its content that's worth paying the difference for is down to the individual.

How many hours of sports action do XL TV subscribers get with inclusive BT Sport , Sky Movies is an Add on with over a 1,000 movies , both services have PPV offerings with 1,000 of movies , hundreds of linear channels showing a wide range of content across the year , Sky has a vast range of first run rights with 100's of boxsets.

As for nothing being left for broadcast channels I'd say the complete opposite , most of the first run rights are with the terrestrial and pay tv broadcasters that's why Netflix felt the need to make the move into original content.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think you're right (to a point*), and this is one of the major reasons they will never completely supplant broadcast TV.

Around half of UK homes don't subscribe to any TV package at all. Sky has been around for 27 years now (almost to the day) - the market is at saturation point; those that don't already have it, are not very likely to go and get it now.

There are large numbers of people that simply won't connect to something if they have to pay for it.

*In future, it is more or less inevitable that as the big providers get into hard competition with each other, the use of adverts will become more widespread as a means of bringing in extra revenue. Look how many ads Sky runs per hour, and they get away with it - it's just a matter of time before big VOD providers start placing one or two ads in their streams.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, at the moment, you can't exactly see a great deal of sport via streaming, which is why I didn't count that. As for films, Sky has most of the exclusive rights with the film studios at present, but Netflix have vowed to take over these exclusive rights in the future.

I admit that I didn't include all the Sky dross fillers between the good programmes when talking about content, but who wants that? If Netflix and Amazon went down that route, I would be looking at alternative options.

For me, the streaming services I use have far more watchable stuff than Sky are able to produce.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

Except that if the Tories get their way and the BBC goes down the route of
subscriptions rather than a licence fee, everyone will be making a choice based on what they can afford.

As far as ads on streaming services are concerned, the first company to do this will certainly lose my custom.

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.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But the advertising funded model is dying, though.

OK, ITV is having a reprieve for now, but until recently it was losing vast amount of revenue through lost advertising.

The advertising model relies on a broadcaster bringing in huge audiences which then makes it worth well for that advertiser to spend a lot of dosh on a tv advert. This worked fine, when it was just ITV and then CH4, CH5, but nowadays it doesn't.

If the main channels keep broadcasting drivel like soaps and reality all the time, then they're shooting just themselves in the head. Even Corrie doesn't garner the kind of audience share it once did even ten years ago.

I'm not aware its illegal for the BBC to become a subscription service, that just not in its charter, currently.... If the BBC were to go doen the adverts route too, they would run into the same problems as ITV,Ch4&5 are having.

Linear tv may not be dying, or may never die, but all the evidence is that younger people are not watching it, and its not just young folks either....

I'm now celebrating my 10th anniversary.... that is of being freed from a tv schedule which just "happened" to coincide with faster broadband speeds becoming available.;)

---------- Post added at 00:25 ---------- Previous post was at 00:17 ----------

Problem with the BBC is they're lazy. They get several billion pounds of revenue and they don't have to work for it. As the BBC stands now, I would not pay for it in any form, if I had the choice.

And as mentioned above, going down the adverts route would not work for them either as ad revenues decline across the board. And you yourself have highlighted this earlier in the thread as one of the main reasons for the rise of streaming service is lack of ads.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

To clarify: it is illegal to for ITV1, Channel 4 or Channel 5 to go behind subscription due to the terms of their PSB licence. If the BBC's PSB licence was altered to remove the licence fee, then every legal precedent in UK broadcasting history says they would then fall under the same terms as the others.

I suspect the statistics you're referring to with regards to ITV's difficult past few years are the ones covering the major recession that began in 2008, which is a pretty extreme example, although it is useful because it shows that even in the worst recession in living memory, and with all the competition from multi-channel TV, ITV managed to do exactly what you're arguing it can't - namely, continue to survive on advertising revenue alone.

It's worth noting, by the way, that all the PSB operators also have multiple additional channels not covered by their PSB obligation, and all of them are free to air, I.e. ad-funded.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Tjays because there are so many channels now and people don't watch as it's broadcast as much. Recordings and catch up are to blame.

Also linear channels are starting to to shift formats.

BBC Three is now an online-only channel http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/16/b...e-online-only/ via Engadget Android

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Then what sort of 'drivel' should they broadcast?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The 'drivel' that Horizon is talking about is very popular, and therefore is a compelling reason why the BBC should continue to be funded by the licence fee. If it were to become add funded, the amount of such 'drivel' on the BBC, would increase.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The proles like drivel. ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

ITV themselves are aware of the dangers of relying solely on ad revenue and around 2012 made the conscious decision to start growing other revenue streams.

http://www.themediabriefing.com/article/itv-revenue

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There are plenty of hidden gems in the TV EPG guide IMO other then the so called drivel which may not be for me personally but many many others like.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

As indicated in my earlier post, where I gave foreign sales and DVDs as examples. ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Fair enough. So what are you referring to here?

Are you saying they can survive on advertising alone? ITV bosses don't seem to be as sure on that one as you seem to be.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Er, you've taken that one sentence out of its context, which is a series of posts which acknowledged the role of additional revenue streams from the outset.

You've further ignored the overall context of the last several posts, which has been a discussion of advertising as an alternative to subscription. ITV did not collapse, despite not having subscription revenues to fall back on during the recession of 2008 onwards.

Context is everything, my friend. ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Ok, fair enough.

So, out of interest, and separate from any previous context, do you think all services (subscription services such as Netflix etc.) and linear channels will have to include advertising at some point in the future?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, all linear broadcasters already do, with the exception of the BBC. Personally I think the BBC will become the principal beneficiary of a broadcast precept on council tax, once the licence fee becomes untenable (and the earliest that will happen will be the charter renewal in 2026). Depending on what proportion of that precept the BBC gets, it may or may not have to start running limited advertising. I think they will try to avoid doing it as hard as they can though, as the ad-free thing is their USP. Only if the BBC completely loses out on any kind of compulsory levy, will it have to re-model itself after ITV in terms of how it raises revenue.

One thing I am absolutely confident of, however, is that the BBC will not ever lock itself behind subscription. That model simply doesn't work in the UK for mass-audience broadcasting.

As for the non-linear content providers, well I believe that market forces will compel them to run adverts eventually. Once they reach saturation point in terms of subscribers, it is the only easy way they will have in order increase revenue. Services that have made a virtue out of not running adverts may hold out for longer, but they will do it eventually, and they will use customer profiling to try to soften the blow by making their ads 'targeted' and 'relevant'.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Market forces haven't ever compelled HBO to carry adverts though.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And I believe differently on that part.

One of the reasons people like services such as Netflix is the shows are add free. Another, is that whole seasons are available in one hit.

It has changed the way I like to watch shows, and I suspect other people are the same.

Hulu, which until recently, always had adds, even on the paid subscription, has introduced another paid for tear that is add free and I recall a post on CF saying that was proving successful.

I think there will always be a demand for add free TV from cord cutters. Yes it is more than likely, like Hulu, it could be a more expensive subscription tier but some people will be prepared to pay for it.

And services like Netflix know how popular the add free aspect of their service is and resist it as long as possible. And if they are forced into it will add the add free tier at the same time.