Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If we`re talking about the BBC providing educational programs which wouldn`t get made if they were behind a pay wall then let the government fund it! Personally i can`t see being behind a pay wall would stop the BBC from making educational programs,after all it doesn`t stop channels such as the History Channel or National Geographic making such programs does it?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The BBC will not go behind a paywall because it is a mass-audience broadcaster. The UK pay TV market does not deliver sufficiently large audiences for the BBC to even consider becoming a subscription service.

Honestly, I don't know why some people are so fixated on the idea that the BBC could go subscription. Why is this? Is it because you see the licence fee as a sort of compulsory subscription, and therefore if the licence fee is bad it should simply be made voluntary?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

l don't think some people realise what we have got with the BBC and would only realise how important it is if it disappears but thankfully that's never going to happen although l do wish bloody politicians would keep their nose out of it.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well yes I don`t believe the licence fee should be compulsory. If you are paying a subscription to Virgin,Sky,or BT then why should you be Forced to pay for something i don`t care about watching? Those that want to watch it should be able to get it by paying for it through perhaps a smart card for their freeview boxes or as an additional cost through Virgin,Sky or BT. i`m sure it could easily be done except the BBC wouldn`t like it for the very simple reason they know how few people would actually want their channels!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Your logic is faulty.

Sky is not a public service broadcaster. Nor is Nat Geo or BT. The BBC, ITV, C4 and C5, on the other hand ... these are PSBs, who have the right to occupy the top five EPG slots on all UK broadcast platforms in return for obeying certain requirements.

Amongst those requirements is that they accept the way they raise revenue is set down in law. For the BBC, by royal charter it is permitted to collect a licence fee from everyone who receives live TV broadcasts. For the others, they are permitted to run commercials (within certain limits). They are also forbidden to charge any kind of subscription.

The alternative funding model for the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, in the absence of a licence fee, is obvious: the other public service broadcasters, who are free to air and ad-supported, are the model, not special interest services like Sky etc.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

What has changed is choice and which is why I broadly agree with Old Boy's view on things.

Originally, there were a handful of broadcast channels and only a few of those were commercial. So, because shows such as Corrie could garner audiences of 20 million viewers+, they made massive revenues from ads.

Then pay tv came along and it spread those viewers across many more channels and in time, the content was spread like thin butter across the many channels too. This may, in part, be why the quality of uktv has gone done.

Now we have streaming services and other on demand choices, many of which are ad free and the programmes are available immediately.

Pay tv ate into ITV's, CH4&5 revenues. I believe streaming will have the same effect on pay tv, as we have seen in the States.

Something has to give somewhere. It can't all be sustainable.

I've said here before and keep saying that I reckon things will go full circle. We may end up with a handful of linear tv channels, perhaps from the main broadcasters, or perhaps not. But the bulk of tv viewing will be non-linear.

I don't want to watch drivel like UK soaps anymore. I used to love them, but not now. I got bored after the last serial killer/rapist/psycho storyline.

The drivel I speak of is not necessarily an individual programme, but the lack of variety on the main broadcast channels.

There was a reason they were called BROADcasters, they are meant to appeal to all. But this is not the case now as they all seem to follow the lowest demographics they can. You don't need reality programmes on the 5 channels all at the same time, or soap etc.

Where are the decent dramas, what has happened to comedy, especially sitcoms? These are largely missing from the broacast schedules. In a the evening i neither find it educational or entertaining to watch the police deal with some drunk, or watch a bloke go down the sewers, or watch an inspection of a dirty restaurant/hotel/house etc. And although it is pleasant if not a little bit envious to watch someone buy a house in a warm, sunny country, I don't need to watch such programmes EVERY day.

No one really cares about HBO, Sky Atlantic etc, but what they do care about is watching their favourite shows like Game of Thrones, or, when it was on, Breaking Bad. Two of the biggest shows in recent times, yet you wouldn't know that if you stuck to the "quality" that is the BBC or ITV.

And before someone says ITV has quality dramas like Downton Abbey, it bored the **** out of me. It was neither dramatic or entertaining. Our broadcasters should be doing a LOT better.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And where does the government get their money from....? ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree, but its very hard to find the quality out of all the dross.

And as I keep saying, I'm not against shows such as NCIS and CSI, but at any one time these shows are on at least a dozen channels EVERY day.

It's very hard to find something to watch when one programme or one kind of genre ie reality, drowns out everything else.

Now if I could actually organise the channels where I want them and on the number I want, that would help.....but I've given up on that idea on cable which is why I mainly stick to Freeview for my linear tv needs.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not really unless your`e telling me the law can`t be changed? Isn`t the government not currently looking at how the BBC is funded? Could they not take them out of the `public broadcaster` thing?
In the not to distant future I think we`l get a situation not unlike the POLL TAX in the eighties were people will simply say I`m not paying anymore! Tell me what can the BBC,government or whoever do about it if say MILLIONS of people just stopped paying for the TV Licence? I think the government are realising this might happen and are desperately trying to seek a fairer way of funding the BBC.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, why not?

If the BBC is so great, it will flourish in a subscription world, won't it...?

---------- Post added at 16:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------

Why is his logic faulty, you haven't said?

What is faulty about having the option to pay for something or not?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Our taxes of course! Those that want the BBC can obtain a decoding card to unlock the channels for them,paying of course through a higher tax. That would leave me and others that don`t want the BBC channels extra money in our pockets.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think that is an unfair criticism of the output of the main FTA channels. They do show good drama, you just have to pick it out from the other stuff; not that difficult as it usually airs at 9:00pm.

I do add to that content via streaming services, but to say the FTA channels don't show good drama is way off in my view.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

One thing I am absolutely confident of, is, the BBC will not have a say in it at all! The government will decide assuming there is a BBC in the future at all. My local MP is one among many who wants rid of the BBC completely.

Agree in part, but as said by someone else there will be higher priced non ad tiers too.

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:11 ----------

For me, as someone who was always a major advocate of our broadcasters, they are dead to me as far as I am concerned.

They exist to service the lowest common denominator only and what "quality" dramas they do come up with are boring and are poorly acted and executed.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The BBC is a major international broadcaster and employs more people than any other broadcaster anywhere in the world. That's 20,000 full time staff, in a business with revenue of more than £5 billion (more than £1bn of which comes from worldwide commercial operations, not the licence fee).

The one thing you can be absolutely certain of, is that nobody is going to get 'rid' of it, and no Government of any colour would get away with forcing a funding model onto it that would be guaranteed to destroy its audience.

I think you're allowing your dislike of the licence fee to cloud your judgment just a little.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Think that's underestimating the huge lobbying power that the BBC has and the desire of the British establishment to have a major broadcaster under their ultimate control. It also suits the other broadcasters far more to have a weakened BBC supported by some form of tax than a major commercial operator taking revenues from advertising or subscription away from them.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I didn't say I disliked the licence fee, its probably the most efficient way to fund the BBC. I just said its not illegal for the BBC to go down a subscription model, should the Government decide to do so. And no, I don't think that is a reality any time soon.

But your argument about them being a world broadcaster, with huge revenues and employing masses of staff could also be used as an argument for privatising them.

If they're so good, let them stand on their own two feet and seek out other means of funding. I'm not saying this is necessarily my view, but I wouldn't rule it out.

I note you call them a business....;) of course they're not, but perhaps they should be??

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

As promised, my views on this are as follows.

Point 1. We all know, I think, that Netflix prices will increase somewhat from the present £8.99 as we get more and better content still in the future. I would expect that to increase to about £20 pm in real terms if they succeed in giving us the full works including studio deals allowing them to show first run films following the pay per view period (currently held by Sky).

Now, that would be a lot to pay for those who can barely afford the licence fee, and therefore to maximise income, Netflix may well structure their prices into tiers, allowing the present service to continue to be available for about £10 pm. Assuming that the licence fee becomes a subscription, this would be a good alternative to the terrestrials for cash strapped families. At £120 per month, this provides a cheaper alternative than the current licence fee. They would still get the free to air terrestrials, minus the BBC channels but plus Netflix. If they preferred, they could simply subscribe to Now TV and get access to the Sky channels at less than they pay now for the licence fee.

Flitting between streaming services no doubt would also take place. If, as I have speculated, Netflix and others decide to force subscribers into annual deals (as Amazon does now), those who can only afford one service will have the opportunity to change services at 12 monthly intervals. That would give less well off people a much better choice over time than they get now. What is not to like?

Point 2. I am not quite sure why you don't understand my paragraph. If it is the reasoning that you are questioning, I assume that the confusion is expressed in the questions that you ask under your second paragraph. My response to that is that I fail to see why you question how subscriptions would be paid.

There are plenty of streaming services operating by subscription currently, including pay per view (eg Google Play) and they don't have a problem collecting subscriptions. There are, however, certain difficulties with collecting BBC subscriptions given that the BBC channels are available via aerials and without a box. The Government is looking at that and believes that a technical solution will be available by the time the next review takes place. We haven't been told (to the best of my knowledge) what that solution will entail.

Pay per view viewing is indeed expensive and is only worthwhile when watching a limited number of programmes offered on this basis. Personally, I prefer paying by subscription.

Point 3. Yes, I am saying there is more content on Netflix than on Sky. It's better quality overall as well. There may be a lot of content on Sky's channels but a very high proportion is very dumbed down material which (in my view) should not be allowed as it is brain numbing to the extreme! Sorry, controversial comment there.

Point 4. Well, my comments about advertising have been related to commercials. I have no problem whatsoever with advertising banners on the sites themselves, I just don't want them to interrupt my viewing.

I do watch PPV programmes occasionally, but frankly my subscriptions pay for almost all of my pay TV viewing.

Point 5. Reading previous posts, I thought you had not actually seen Now TV, my apologies if I was wrong about that (there are too many posts to trawl through!). My point was that although there are advertisements on Now TV, they are only contained within the small linear broadcast TV section of that site (in other words, the same channels that you get on Sky TV). However, the streaming videos available on Now TV do not contain advertisements. I was certainly not questioning your understanding of what linear broadcast TV was!

I do not distinguish between 'catch up' and 'streaming videos' on Now TV. I would not regard the last few series of 'Aquarius' as 'catch up', which I would tend to regard as services enabling you to see programmes that were broadcast last week (now last month for most 'catch up' players). I guess you could regard all previously broadcast programmes as 'catch up', but I don't think that is a common interpretation.

For the record (I have said this before), my viewing is almost exclusively via my own recordings, Netflix, Now TV, Amazon and the various players. I hardly ever watch anything live - even the News is recorded for viewing when I am ready to watch it.

You are correct in saying you cannot record from Now TV. As to whether Now TV subscribers actually prefer live TV cluttered with commercials or the streaming videos of the same programmes and more on that platform I will leave to conjecture unless someone has the figures. Unless you love to waste your time with commercials, I would suggest that most people just choose the videos on there and watch them.

Sky may choose to promote the live TV because they make more advertising money from you the more you watch by that method, but frankly, given the choice before you when you get into Now TV, why would you choose to watch programmes that way? Incidentally, the 'catch up' part of the service is the same as any other 'catch up' service, but there are no ads on Now TV videos.

Point 6. I think you will see a growing tendency for the services with global reach buying up all the exclusives because they will simply outbid the national broadcasting companies with their bigger wallets. Sky are riding high at the moment and indeed they have recently secured a deal with Showtime. However, I think we are nearing an end to this era and things will be looking very different not that long from now. Only time will prove this to you.

Point 7. Yes, I am sure that these channels will be milking their exclusive content for all its worth before they release their shows to the global companies. However, they will ultimately sell them on to make even more money for those programmes. There are already signs that these channels are not only using their players for catch up, but also for displaying other programmes they have made or commissioned. For example, All 4 has three series of 'Indian Summers' on it, despite the fact that only series 1 has aired on Channel 4. It is possible that the channels could avoid selling on their programmes by substantially expanding their own sites and allowing them to be accessed globally.

Of course, the likes of BBC, Channel 4, Fox and Universal could decide to pull their content from the streaming providers if they wished to do so, but how do you think that would actually affect Netflix and Amazon, who get their programmes and films from a variety of sources and are now even making their own content?

I hope that this addresses all the points you have made, Harry. Let me know if you think there is anything I have missed. ;)

---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Laws can be changed, Chris. The Conservatives have not disguised their preference to force the BBC into a subscription based model.

Putting commercials onto the BBC will not be popular with the public but converting the licence fee into a subscription would address the complaints made by those who say they are forced to pay this fee even though they don't watch or listen to the BBC.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think you'll find individual conservative MPs, speaking their own opinions, may have floated the idea. There is a vast difference between the opinions of individual MPs and party policy.

As usual, OB, you're having difficulty processing facts. The facts are:
1. Public service broadcasting, funded by commercials, is a long established precedent in the UK.
2. The most successful subscription-funded entertainment channel broadcaster in the UK (Sky) also has to run adverts to make ends meet. You can't use subscription as an alternative to advertising. You have to use both together.

Locking the BBC behind subscription would destroy it almost overnight because its entire operation is based on mass appeal and audience levels you simply can't get if you're behind a paywall. For that reason, it will never be the policy of any mainstream UK party, and even if it were, the legal challenges would go on for so long as to make it impossible to deliver.

You are of course free to speculate to your heart's content, but there is a qualitative difference between predicting future events based on past and current trends, and predicting the future as an exercise in wish fulfilment.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And you still haven't answered my question from a few weeks back. How much would you be prepared to pay, in the extremely unlikely event, that it did go to the subscription model?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well in my opinion it will never go to the subscription model but in the unlikely event if it did l think we would be talking about £15 a month at least PB and maybe more then that.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree. However OLDBOY admits he uses BBC content. I just want to know how much he would be prepare to pay.

A price rise, and a fairly big one, would have to happen in the extremely unlikely event, it did go to subscription.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

£180 a year to watch the BBC thanks but no thanks.:td:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And the price l stated per month is probably more near the bottom end of the scale.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Which is why a subscription model is a nonsense.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Exactly.

In truth it would have to be a lot higher than that, if the BBC were to try to maintain its current level of output and also avoid running adverts, because not everyone would subscribe.

Making the BBC a subscription service is an utterly brainless idea, touted by people who just can't get over the licence fee.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So you think it's perfectly fair to charge for a service that is not used? Strange logic.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

To be honest, I don't know. I guess it would depend on what was on offer.

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Well, there are those who say that most people would elect to keep watching the BBC. If that were the case, it is probably the case that the subscription would not have to be much more than it is now. They could probably keep the subscription very close to what it is now with some sensible savings.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Pretty sure that every household must use at least one BBC service be it radio, internet or TV and the BBC World Service is designed to help everyone by influencing thinking in unfriendly countries and putting across a positive face of the UK. Plenty of other services that I pay for eg schools that I don't use.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Schooling is something of a necessity, a TV license is not... imo

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sorry OB, I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that.

10% opting out would reduce the budget dramatically.

The BBC are under so much financial pressure, and so much scrutiny, that they are already looking at cost cutting anyway. So don't expect that to contribute to a lower subscription cost in the distant future
.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Its lovely listening to OB views but he does try rather hard to convince himself of the impossible sometimes.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The BBC are doing a lot more than looking at cost-cutting, they're doing it! £700m a year worth of cuts. Hence the end of Formula 1, reduction in BBC3's budget and move online, relocation to Salford. But they still need to save another £50m a year.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It is also looking likely that Radio Five might also go online only with a huge reduction of their sports rights as well and also there could be a savage cutting of large parts of their BBC news channel from what l hear.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There are still substantial cuts that could be made. They'd save a small fortune by working to the budgets of ITV, Channel 4 or Sky. I'm not saying that the budget should be the same, just that there is plenty of fat left. Don't ignore the size of the BBC bureaucracy or the rampant inefficiencies within the organisation.

A more commercial approach to the way the organisation is run by changing to a subscription model would sharpen resolve.

Sky has a very small proportion of the total audience share, and doesn't do such quality broadcasting, which is why they need commercials to bump up their finances.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You're making an argument for something that can't happen.

It makes no difference how therapeutic you think subscription would be for the BBC, the regulatory precedent and the very structure of the organisation says if it ever had to go commercial it would do so by being FTA with adverts - exactly the same as all its competitors.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And do you seriously think, that with the financial pressure and the scrutiny they are under, plus the fact that, to please their mate Rupert the Tories are trying to sabotage the BBC, they aren't looking at those things for cuts?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Here we go again... it is as it is and nothing can ever be changed. Sorry, but this is poppycock. If the government of the day feels strongly enough about it, the law will be changed to abolish the existing licence fee system and introduce subscriptions. Whether or not that would also require advertising revenue (not a good thing in my book) would remain to be seen. If as I suspect most people would subscribe, I don't believe that will be necessary, although further changes to BBC services and elimination of waste would be.

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

I don't think a lot of people realise how bloated this organisation is. There is plenty of room for improvement. The BBC must concentrate on both quality and efficiency, behaving in its attitude to financial management rather more like a commercial organisation.

Just because they may be secure in the belief that taxpayer's money gives them financial advantage over the private sector doesn't give them the right to waste our money.

---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 ----------

You and your family may not use schools, but you certainly benefit by having our kids educated. Without it, do you really think we would be able to benefit from the same level of services in future years?

You cannot legitimately compare essential services with entertainment services. I don't want to pay for others to be entertained, thank you very much.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Here we go again ... precisely.

You have extreme difficulty when it comes to weighing evidence. Your post is laden with ifs, suspicions and beliefs but you show no understanding of how broadcast regulations work, how legal precedent works or even how government and parliament works, especially in relation to the above.

Your beliefs are your own, and you're welcome and entitled to them. But in terms of taking this discussion forwards ... well, you simply aren't.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But Chris, you are failing totally to acknowledge that things can change. Legal precedents do not apply to matters that have been changed by legislation.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has stated that he thinks the BBC should be at least partially funded by subscriptions. You can't just pass this off as one of a small number of MPs who favours such a move.

I don't believe that anyone who refuses to believe that change can happen is exactly engaging in a discussion, Chris! ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

What I'm failing to do is to give any credence to your fantasies.

The contents of this thread alone is enough to show you really don't know what you're talking about - all you have done since it started is 'predict' that the future of TV would look pretty much the way you wish it would, based on the way you personally prefer to consume content.

Let's not forget that you started out making bold predictions about linear TV ending in 10 years or a little more, even though the evidence right before you was that the BBC was about to engage in a charter renewal process that would guarantee its functions for a decade, with no prospect of an abrupt end thereafter.

You may have noticed, regardless of the personal beliefs of any member of the government, the charter renewal process isn't examining a move to subscription. It's not even flagging up advance warning that the BBC should start researching it.

You have to learn to separate the noise and chaff of what individual politicians say (even the senior ones), and what is politically possible to achieve. Until you can do that, you are going to carry on making gaffes like this one, from a little over a year ago:

... which was a thoroughly daft claim you could have avoided making, simply by weighing the real-world evidence over your desire to see TV delivered in the way you prefer it.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

"Brainless" is making people pay for something they neither use or want.

and in other news today, ITV released its latest results which show that although profits are rising, numbers are down on their main channels.

Didn't some here say that ITV was getting stronger again and it was only during the last recession they had a blip. Foul...... They're going one way, downwards. Plus, the media are reporting that BT may make a bid for ITV soon.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If your income was reduced, would you not make cuts and prioritise certain areas of expenditure? Any sensible person would do so. Why do you think, the BBC would be stupid enough not to do the same? Additionally, the BBC are under massive scrutiny over spending and face the threat of a government that seems intent on destroying them. That would wake any organisation up to address spending. Times have changed, and the BBC gets it. Despite what I assume, the Daily Mail and Murdoch owned papers would like you to believe.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There are many other companies who would give their right arm to have a annual pre-tax profit of £641m...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But that's based mostly on ad revenues and ad revenues are based on how many people are watching. As ITV themselves said, they are seeing less viewers watching their main channels. If this continue it will mean less ad revenues, means less dosh, full stop.

BUT

I don't disagree that they are a major cash cow which is why someone will make a bid soon.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I have merely speculated that with reducing advertising revenues as the nation moves to streaming instead of being hide bound by inflexible schedules and saturated by time wasting commercials, live broadcast TV will struggle to survive and that in 20 years' time, watching TV will be a completely different experience.

On the contrary to what you have said, and as I have clarified on more than one occasion, my prediction is not 'what I want' but how I think things may change to cope with the economics of it all.

You made it clear from the off that the status quo was what you were most comfortable with and it seems to me that you have turned your back on the suggestion of any change at all in your comfort zone. That's OK, but don't say you were never warned when the time comes. In the meantime, let's try to ignore what's happening all around us, like little inconvenient truths such as BBC going online only to save costs. The same sort of thing will almost certainly happen in respect of commercial TV when the bottom line so dictates.

In relation to the BBC subscription issue, despite the pronouncements of the Secretary of State, you are simply not engaging with what he has already said. There will be no subscription based BBC for the next decade, but when the next renewal time comes, this will be a serious consideration (if the Tories are still in power at that time).

By the way, given the scale of the cuts to the BBC, I am surprised that you think a major change to this much loved institution is 'politically impossible to achieve'. Oh, really? :p:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I have just switched on tv in the hope of actually watching something on one of the main channels. This is the choice:

BBC1: Traffic Cops
BBC2: The 100k House
ITV: Big Star, Little Star
CH4: Posh Pawn
CH5: GPs: Behind Closed Doors

With one exception of a poor quality "entertainment" show, ALL reality. Someone please explain how that is a genuine choice.

And some on here think that linear tv, in the current form, will continue.....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It won't.

http://mandetech.com/2011/03/13/tv-in-20-years/

The explosion in content and content sources puts pressure on existing business models to change. Viewers are no longer captive to producers constraints, they can get the content they want at any time. As a result, the old business models of captive audience and advertising supported content must change to reflect the realities that people now control the medium rather than the other way around.
As a result of technology changes that enabled time-shifting and on-the-go content consumption, viewers behaviors are changing dramatically. As a result of increases in time shifting, over 40 percent of viewers now watch the programs at their own convenience and schedule rather than when the content is broadcast. People can get to their programs through multiple channels and platforms, and as a result are not dependent upon the original sources for the content.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

A little statistic released by the BBC recently was about which show they had sold the most times all around the world. Not Dr Who. Not Top Gear. Certainly not Eastenders. But Keeping Up Appearances.

Once upon a time you could switch on the tv and have a choice of dramas, comedies, factual, entertainment as well as other genres to choose from. Not any more. Reality and soap dominate.

Oh heck, my eyes must be deceiving me....there are actually two dramas on the main channels now!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If people look a bit more there are far more drama series on then one imagines.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The following report came out before the advent of streaming, so the situation is even more critical now. An interesting read, if you have the time:

https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports...dEntertain.pdf

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Have you ever tried to navigate the EPG using a tivo?:D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If you have pay tv why just look at the terrestrial channels , there are many dramas spread across the numerous pay tv channels.

I agree with your point about the terrestrial channels though we watch very little on them and hardly anything appeals to us from the BBC.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And for those that defend ITV, I present as evidence: ITV Be.

Case closed.

Now if there were something on, I wouldn't be on here!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes its rather easy on our TiVo.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Have a look at the report I linked to, very relevant for this thread. The report is very much against the status quo aka the terrestrial broadcasters, major production houses etc.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Excellent read, thank you for linking it. :tu:

Quoted from the conclusion:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This is a really excellent piece on the changes happening as US TV transitions away from linear TV:
http://redef.com/original/there-isnt...tor=MediaREDEF

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB thanks for the reply. I wont quote your entire post, I will try and save the space.

I wont debate about NowTV either, because as you allude to, no-one knows what is it's main use.

As for Netflix, I can see it rising above £20 in 10 years time, it is already nearly £10, and it has raised prices rapidly in recent years.

There are a number of things not to like with your first point. Mainly, how will being limited to one streaming service a year be fair to poorer families? There will only be so much content available, and how anyone could stretch that out over 12 months is beyond me. What also happens when the poorer families get hooked onto the exclusive shows that their one streaming service provides? They then have a choice to either keep the same old content for another 12 months, just for a couple of shows or risk losing those shows for some more variety. Lets also say these poorer families all have Now TV because that's all they can afford. What happens if, when linear tv "dies out" and the poorer families watch 2 shows one on Universal and one on Fox. These two seperate channels, then become independent streaming services each keeping their shows. All of a sudden, they have to a make a choice to pay more than they currently do to watch one of their favourites show and lose the other. Don't forget, if we have streaming services only, I have no doubt Universal, Fox etc would all release their own services. Sky (I believe) have stakes in these channels, but I doubt they could stop them launching streaming independent streaming services. That seems rather an unfair on the poorer members of society. What would you do if you were in that situation and little money? Would you be happy with that option?

Point 2 - I don't remember how this one started, and I am lost as to why you are talking about bbc subscriptions. Regarding PPV, people who do pay are those who can afford to, or chose to. I choose not to. I am glad agree PPV is expensive though, I trust you won't suggest it again in future now.

Point 3 - Okay, yup there is plenty of dumbed down stuff on Sky. There is plenty on Netflix too though.

Point 4/6 - How many advertising banners will you accept though. I don't think you fully grasp how much ad revenue will be required to help keep subscriptions down, especially for the costs of exclusive world-wide rights. Lets try and figure out some very basic costs. Netflix operates in about 200 countries, with 75 million customers. Lets say each customer pays on average £6.99 (I am aware some countries may cost less than the UK, so have lowered the average price below the UK price) to run as it currently stands. Lets say Netflix win rights for just one single show, and the rights cost £500,000 for that shows rights in each country it operates in. (I imagine it will cost more that that, but happy to be wrong). The cost for one show, alone, would cost £100,000,000 extra, that is £1.50 extra per customer. Lets say they win rights to 20 shows, that will be £30 extra per customer. You are talking crazy prices for exclusive world wide rights. Lets say Netflix double their customer base, it's still £15 extra per customer, and that is already taking over the £20 you mentioned in point 1. This, does not of course include any global film rights - imagine the cost of those!!

Point 7 - Indian summers is now coming to C4.

How attractive would Netflix be to you without the BBC, Channel 4, Fox and universal tv show content alone, let alone all the films they own? How many shows and films would be lost? Hundreds and hundreds. I can not imagine they will be as such good value as they are now.

I am once again losing the will to live with this thread, but I await your reply.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Talking of Indian summers...

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201603074...#axzz429GGJdKP

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Point 1.Well, don't forget that as well as a good streaming service such as Netflix, there will also be other options available. The various free players will still be there to give viewers the opportunity to watch the likes of ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 programmes, and I expect others will pop up as well over time.

I really do fail to see why you think that there is so little content on Netflix or Amazon. I am really struggling to see all the things I want to see on Netflix, there is so much on there. I've only scratched the surface of Amazon due to the range of TV programmes I have lined up already. This, coupled with the free players will be more than enough to satisfy a year's worth of viewing, and in my opinion anyway, the material is of better quality overall.

As for missing some exclusive programmes on other platforms, well that is what happens now and I don't see that changing, in fact it will probably get worse, even on our present system. Viewers can always watch programmes missed in the first year in the second year, and incidentally, so far it is only Amazon that has annual contracts for streaming services in this country. You shouldn't forget that many cable subscribers want Sky Atlantic because of the few programmes on there that are worth seeing, but choose not to ditch VM for Sky to watch them. The situation you describe is no different really.

There will not necessarily be separate streaming services for all the channels we watch now. It will probably make sense for them to get together so that they can offer a better range of programmes to attract people to their service. Some of these will be funded by non skippable advertisements, which some are quite happy to endure, it seems. However, to maximise their audiences, there is likely to be a subscription option to avoid the ads, in response to consumer preferences.

It is also open to Sky and other providers such as Virgin Media and BT to make financial deals with these companies and provide their subscribers with bundles of streaming services, just as we have with TV channels at the moment. Whether these organisations will want to go down that route, I don't know, but we shall see.

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------

Point 2. Well if there were BBC subscriptions instead of the licence fee, people would have the choice to spend their money on other options. I mentioned PPV because PPV is already out there, and if we eventually get HBO, that will probably operate on a PPV basis. I accept you don't like PPV, but that doesn't mean that some streaming services won't have it.

---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------

Point 3 True, but there's far more good stuff on Netflix. Just take a look at Sky's schedules on the non-premium channels this week. Is there really much on there worth watching? Now look at the options on Netflix. It's a no brainer really.

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------

Points 4-6. There could be advertisements on each page of Netflix alongside the details of the content.

True, global content rights will be high, but that needs to be set in the context that you also have global audiences! The bigger the audience a company can guarantee, the smaller the overall price per customer. Your cost examples are hugely speculative and I won't comment on that, if you don't mind. However, surely you can see that whatever amounts can be generated, any shortfall will have to be addressed in other ways (eg a smaller subscription charge, a less comprehensive menu for those who choose not to pay full price, etc).

---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

Point 7 That's right, and series 1 has already been broadcast. However, all three series are available on All4 (not the Virgin Media version). So when you talk about people having to wait to see their favourite programmes if they can only afford one streaming provider, remember, it also works the other way. If you watch via All4, you can see Indian Summers from start to finish. If you watch via Channel 4, you will be lucky to get to the end of series 3 by the summer of next year!

I don't know why you think any shows will be 'lost'. There will be a number of streaming services and players. The programmes will be on there instead. As for value, the streaming companies will know that there is only room in the market for a certain number of subscription services. Over a certain amount and the revenue for each will start to come down. I believe that the market will sort all of this out.

I am sorry to hear that you are tiring of this thread (although I think you said something like that many pages ago). However, I think that looking into the future and what it may hold in this area is fascinating.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB, I have never said there is not much content on Netflix or Amazon. The content on Amazon is not tempting to me. Just because you have huge amounts of TV lined up to watch, does not mean others will. I like plenty of the old repeated shows on Netflix, does not mean I would want to watch them all over again, simply because I could only afford one subscription, along with the free channels a year. Incidentally, which other free services due you see popping up?
Fair point on the exclusives.
Will you make your mind up on the streaming services. Are people going to flit between individual monthly subs, (which was your original thought) be contracted to expensive individual annual subscriptions for independent streaming services, thus limiting what people can watch (which is what you then changed your mind to) Or are Sky and VM just going to continue their business model as they currently do and the majority streaming services/channels will still all be available at a fair(ish) price so the majority of people who want such services can enjoy them still? Also, if that would work, why is it not happening in the States yet?

Point 2 - why will HBO be ppv over here? Why will it launch a streaming service when it makes more money from the deal with Sky, and probably amazon now too?

Point 3 - For me, there is very good stuff on Sky, if you above channel number 200, and very good stuff on Netflix. Personally, I would suggest Sky has better over all content, but that's my taste. I accept you think Netflix has more.

Points 4/6 I did the calculations for a global audience that doubled in size OB. I would like you to speculate on the costs though please OB, of both TV and Films. You say it is feasible, so lets see your maths please. With regards a lesser service, unless Netflix plan to rip off the lower tier audience and charge them more than the lesser service is worth, how are they going to make your proposed short fall up?

Point 7 - Of course shows will be lost to people. You have already talked about people missing exclusive shows, and said it will continue to happen. If this ficticiuos market will only have a certain amount of room for a number of subscription services, how are shows not going to be lost? How on earth are the remaining services going to be able to afford the rights to these shows and continue to operate if there revenues start to drop? Yes, they may gain a few more customers from the services that drop away, but they will soon reach the maximum income they can get, and they will than have rising costs to improve the service.

The thread is interesting and I always enjoy a good debate on here. I just tire of your reluctance to acknowledge any issues with your proposals. I have dropped out of the thread before for these reasons, and I may have to again soon, to let someone else try and discuss this with you. I will try not to though.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Viacom dismiss cord cutting and think people still prefer bundling:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/viacom...terview-2016-2

First time I heard the term 'cord-shaving'.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Broadcasting is a hairy business.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I found the article very contradictory. I will read again, then comment.

Thanks for the link.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There's a second part now too: https://redef.com/original/56d0d7db63c0b49f224c5e9f

Conclusion:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It should be possible to bundle streaming services in the same way as TV channels are bundled.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The second article is split into three main sections:

The first section deals with the traditional media companies competing against Netflix and how they will need to build "scale" to do it. That word was used frequently.

The second section deals with social networks and how they'll become increasingly important. You won't just go to Facebook to share your favourite photos with friends, but watch your favourite shows on their too according to the article.

And the third main section dealt with what the article called identity feeds aka niche players. Like Netflix, but smaller players where you go to watch your favourite niche shows and interact with others depending on your interests, ie sci-fi, DIY, etc.

I think the article over-eggs the importance of social networks like Facebook and what is popular one day, ie MySpace, is forgotten the next. So, I'll concentrate on the other two sections.

The gist of the first section was that while the number of channels has grown, generally most people stick to just a handful. The article believes this is how it will be in the future tv landscape too and a streaming at that. There may be two or three streaming services that dominate and that's it.

The article went on to say that the media companies have already experimented with apps but are now reducing them to scale up against netflix. So, rather than there being several different Discovery channel aps, there is now just one. Rather than several different Fox apps, there is now just one. The article believes, and I agree, that the media companies need to offer a broad selection of shows if they launching their own streaming servies just like Netflix is now doing.

The article was saying that the big media companies/networks have to decide whether they keep doing business with the likes of netflix or create their own streaming services. But the article believes that mass consolidation is on the way in the media world and it be increasingly unlikely that smaller players can survive, although they believe that the US networks stand a good chance of surviving into the future based on their current programming, but only if they adapt to the streaming world.

There is far too much in the article to comment on, but I do think they are making too many assumptions, ie about Netflix. If someone comes up with better tech than Netflix, a better user interface, they'll be no Netflix. And of course if the big media companies withhold content from Netflix, that will finish them off too. That wasn't really covered in the article as they think Netflix, plus a few other will reign supreme. Perhaps, or perhaps not.

On the other section about niche players, I've already talked about this in the thread, I called them portals, so I'll say no more about that. Main post here and the rest of my comments on portals are on page 2 of this thread after this post:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35753988-post21.html

In conclusion, I agree with what some of that second article says, particularly about media consolidation, but its not clear who will be the "winners" yet. The article thinks, "winner takes all," but I would not like to be in a world of just a few tv choices or worse, one.

Now I'm off to watch something on Netflix.... as, as always, evening tv on our main channels is dominated by reality crap.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Ok, after reading it again, it wasn't contradictory at all, but very clear and a MUST read for all on this thread.

To summarise the article it says that while the number of tv channels has increased, so has the amount of original series'. But crucially, so have overall profits. Things aren't getting worse in the tv world, but much better, but things are changing.

Americans are watching more tv than ever, with growth particularly on mobile devices and the American population has grown too. So everything is good then according to the article, no....

While overall profits are rising, all the various cable channels and broadcast networks are fighting over an ever decreasing audience per show. You can only watch one thing at a time.

And the media companies make their own channels fight each other for audience share, rather than work together. NBCUniversal's channels like NBC, Sci-Fi, USA are cannibalizing each other by the infighting. But that didn't matter too much until recently because all the channels were making ever increasing amounts of dosh. Then came along Netflix et all and the ever increasing profits from the traditional bundle of cable channels is now eroding fast.

The American tv business model, as was, was based on ad revenues of numbers of viewers per show. The streaming model is more complex and not necessarily based on the number of viewers per show but whether those viewers are more likely to come back to the streaming service and watch something else and how fast they watch the show, ie binge watch a whole series in a day.

The conclusion of the article is that while tv is making money overall, the number of new shows getting cancelled is increasingly sharply threatening the current business model of network and cable tv. But the article reckons that things will sort themselves out. Cable channels will merge or collapse and less new series' will be made. And, as tv transitions to a streaming model and the audience increases not just to an American one, but a global one, tv as a whole will continue to grow.

Interesting stuff.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201603104...#axzz42YAwKc2g

Traditional ways of watching TV still dominates according to this article.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Now perhaps our revered poster should take his rose tinted glasses off for once.;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Den, if you read beyond the headline, you will see that this refers to viewing on a TV set compared with viewing on a smartphone or tablet.

Viewing video is, in fact, increasing, and this is exactly my point throughout this thread. When this increase gets to the point where commercial broadcast TV becomes unviable....you know the rest!

In my view, this will not happen for a few years yet, and until that time, the number of broadcast linear channels will remain more or less the same.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Of course it does.

Viewing via portable devices is being driven by kids because they don't own their own homes and more and more of their parents are realising there's no need to put a TV in their bedroom because the computer monitor plus Youtube or iPlayer does the job.

The great mistake people often mistake when reading demographic statistics is to assume the behaviour exhibited by a particular age group can be projected forwards in time. In actual fact, people's behaviour changes according to their age and other factors - in this case, once the kids are grown up, got their own house and take control of the TV in the living room.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree with most of that, Chris. However, we need to consider why, having been used to getting access to material on demand, newly 'settled down' adults would then be prepared to be bound by the inflexible method of scheduled TV.

The trend towards video is already happening, as the stats show. This will continue to grow, and much more rapidly after the next few years.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I am really surprised that you cannot find much on Amazon or Netflix that interests you, Harry, because there is so much on there. Sky's non premium channels don't even come close to what either of the main streaming services have to offer. Incidentally, Netflix is planning 55 more original new series this year, so it just gets better and better!

You have asked me to 'make up my mind on streaming services' and whether people will flit from one streaming service to another, etc. I'm not sure how you expect me to know the answer to that as I can't predict precisely what services will be available in the future, let alone which services they will prefer. However, at a guess, I would imagine that there will be a range of behaviours by viewers. Some will want to maximise their viewing experience by flitting about, some will tend to be loyal to one or two providers and of course there will always be those who want it all (like me, tee hee!).

Incidentally, I don't know why you are saying that I've changed my mind. The only reason I mentioned annual subscriptions is that you asked me a specific question, and I answered it. I have no idea if annual subscriptions will ever become the norm, but existing channel providers do seem to prefer to lock you in. At the moment of course, there are a range of practices, ranging from annual subscriptions (Amazon) to a much more flexible monthly pass approach (such as Now TV).

I would like to see Sky and cable companies offering packages of discounted subscription services (much the same as we have bundles of channels now). Whether that will happen, who knows? There's not much evidence of that yet, but it may come. Alternatively, we may have to subscribe separately as we currently have to do with Netflix.

I do believe that HBO will eventually launch over here. I think they stand to make more money by making their shows available to a wider audience. In all likelihood, this will be on a pay per view basis (unfortunately). :mis:

I have no figures worked out, Harry, but you don't need to be a maths expert to work out that you will get a bigger discount for the content if you are a global rather than a national player. The more you buy, the less you pay per unit. That's how these wholesale deals work.

As for the 'ripping off audiences' comment, I really don't get that. If a less wide ranging selection of programming can be provided at a cheaper price for those who can't afford, or don't want to pay for everything, how is that a rip off? Sky and VM have different bundles of channels now, from M to XL. Is that a rip off?

As for shows being lost, that will only happen during the exclusivity period, by and large. Eventually, everything tends to have more general availability after a while - this maximises income generation.

Harry, other posters have been putting up links to articles that make it pretty clear that these changes are coming. I don't understand why you cannot see this, but I have concluded that you won't believe it until it happens for real. So I guess I will have a bit of a wait before I hear you say: "Geez! You was right"!

I've already worked out that I'll probably be dead by then! ;)

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

http://advanced-television.com/2016/...-svod-service/

The BBC has held talks with rivals including ITV about launching a Netflix-style video SVoD streaming service.

The talks, which are also said to have involved NBC Universal, focus on the potential to develop a subscription TV service. The service would major on providing archive TV content from the broadcasters rather than the first-run of shows, although there would be a certain amount of original commissions.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But kids grow up, Chris, and what do you think they will do when they settle down to their TVs and find that they are hide bound by schedules and flooded with adverts?

I rest my case!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Good.

Case dismissed. :p:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Talking of younguns, I had a look at the kids section of Netflix today, never looked at it before. It's immense, hundereds of hours of stuff. Mostly cartoons, but some dramas too.

I think the first casualties in the pay tv world will be in the kids tv channels. Why would kids bother watching the cartoon network showing cartoons they might not like when they can select exactly what they want on Netflix?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

what i find astonishing is the BBC didnt axe the kids channels and bbc 4 but went for bbc 3 instead.

kids tv shows could be put on iplayer for parents to monitor and choose for their kids. since "little sammy" would just sit in front of the tv anyway. bbc 4 is pretty much bbc 2. Put kids tv "live" shows on bbc 2 from 3-5.15. All the remaining bbc 4 shows on bbc 2 since theyre fairly identical anyway.

BBC 3 is watched by the next generation of license fee payers. Youve taken away their chanel and p*ssed them off by keeping bbc2 and bbc4 aka the same channels and same age group.

it was such a bad decision!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

BBC 2 is not the same as BCC 4. The BBC 3 viewers are of the generation that tends to stream anyway.

It's a shame any channel has to be on-line only, but given the situation, BBC 3 was the right choice.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The BBC itself said if it had had the choice, it wouldn't have experimented with an online-only channel for another 10 years. Given that its hand was forced, BBC3 was the best choice. It always was the channel with the thinnest public service justification, as the 18-35 audience is extremely well catered for elsewhere*. BBC3's audience can also go off and stream stuff without adult supervision. If you're going to run a grand experiment, why would you make it more complicated than it needs to be by choosing a kids channel that would require parental involvement?

* BBC management's first attempt to close BBC Choice and replace it with BBC3 was rejected by the BBC Trust, because the Trust said management had not demonstrated the public service value of what they were proposing. Management had to go away, redraw their plans and then try a lot harder to convince the Trust it was necessary and worthwhile. BBC Four, meanwhile, had no such problems and was up and running some while before Three.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It was yes, IIRC they got BBC3 passed by including news in a format accessible to young people ie Sixty Second Countdown.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But with growing up don`t they also mature and realize that some things are different?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

They do. They also start having kids of their own, and then realise that a pre-schooler doesn't need favourites, reminders or box sets. To the extent that young kids should be sat in front of a TV at all, a simple, linear schedule broadcast, for example, by the CBeebies channel, is more than adequate. Better, in fact, than a Netflix-like service, because the BBC's kids schedules are constructed with an eye on achieving a balance between crazy entertainment and useful knowledge and personal development.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Our grandkids get bored with the scheduled telly. They tend to watch recordings, on demand, Netflix and Amazon.

As far as newly matured adults who are settling down are concerned, I think I will be proved correct when I say they will be bored by pre-scheduled programming constantly interrupted by adverts.

I would like to think that the new generation of viewers are not so mindless and lazy that they just want to turn on the box and watch any old junk that is thrown at them. Most will be used to watching stuff when it's convenient to them, and they expect to watch it instantly.

---------- Post added at 12:38 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

So they just give up and accept linear TV when all those alternatives are available?

I don't think so, and that's not my experience. My God, even some retired friends of ours who baulked at Internet shopping only a few years ago are into Netflix on TV.

The advent of smart TVs will only hasten this process.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Hmmmm nice to be called mindless and lazy.....:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

In my view, kids of today, who are used to streaming content, when they get older and have their own homes, will simply flit between streaming and linear channels, using both as naturally as the each other.

The current older generation have been brought up on linear TV only. Some are perfectly content with things as they've always been (and there's nothing wrong with being content). Others are apprehensive because they are worried that it may be too complicated.

This won't be an issue for the kids of today and they'll use the best of both TV worlds. I think they will be less likely to take out long term high price pay TV contracts though and just use the free linear channels and streaming services.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree with this assessment, PB. Unfortunately, I think the linear broadcast channels will not be able to sustain their financial viability with the reduction of audience share that this implies.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

I was referring to the younger generation, Den. It's perfectly acceptable for those of our generation to be a lot more relaxed and contented!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

At the moment, linear TV channels still get first run TV rights to TV drama. Amazon and Netflix have been entering into that field for a couple of years now, but it is a small proportion of those going to linear TV channels. Also it is mainly content from US cable channels, not primetime network TV. These still mainly go to linear channels.

Until that changes, linear channels will still have their draw.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That fine OB as look l have nothing against streaming as yes we do very much watch quite a bit of linear TV but later this year when our contract ends we will probably get a Now TV box as the two channels we want are on there so we will have less on our package so we can add that as a nice little add on for our entertainment.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That's the thing, Den. Once you've got it you wonder how you managed without it, and that gets you thinking...!
:Sun:

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

I don't disagree, and I think this will remain the case for at least the next two or three years.

Don't forget that Netflix are planning to put out many more Netflix originals and there will be a growing demand to watch this material. Look at how Game of Thrones draws people to Sky Atlantic. If Netflix or Amazon were to stumble upon something like this that captured the public imagination, it would be the start of the trend towards 'must have' streaming services.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Interesting report on Andrew Neill's speech for SES. He says he has changed his opinion and the so-called insurgents are not as disruptive as he previously believed. “Netflix is not the great disrupter and TV will not die in 2030 as is the claim of Netflix CEO Reed Hastings.” "Neil said there was pain at the margins for broadcasters, but Netflix was starting to struggle in the United States. “It’s not a disrupter, it’s a network.”
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...tv-golden-age/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Which would be a linear TV channel ...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

]I know, Chris, I referred to it myself!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Will reply to your other post when I have a bit more time OB, but (bib) are you suggesting that linear channels will begin to die in the next 2-3 years then OB, or have I mis-read your statement?

Also, I know how I live with a Now TV box. It is called a Sky+ box and a decent deal.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's difficult to say, Harry. It depends not only on the take up of streaming services in the short term but also the economic situation. However, I would have thought the broadcast channels are safe for at least three years, yes. By the end of the decade, I think we will see a marked decline in quality of programming on those channels that are still operating. In 20, I believe they may all have ceased to exist.

Obviously, this is all speculative, and assumes that rabbits are not pulled out of hats to the extent that broadcast channels are reprieved, but I really can't see that happening. The way I see it, the economics just don't add up when you look at the way things are going. I can't think of anything that would lead to linear channels surviving 20 years.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If unsure repeat and repeat and repeat until one has been brainwashed in believing the unbelievable.;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Could you repeat that? 😆

---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------

The most useful thing you've said in this entire thread ...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I've never said anything else, Chris. That doesn't mean it won't happen, though!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Totally agree.........

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I find enough stuff to watch on Netflix OB, as I have stated many times before. Amazon just does not appeal to me. They do have some stuff I would watch, but I will pay them per episode for something I would not fully own, I would rather buy the bluray. The trouble I have is, like many linear tv channels, they are also choc full of old shows. As I have also stated before, I don't care how many shows Netflix are releasing, it is the quality of them that matters. I have this about the quality of shows on SA before too. Let's not quibble about this though, again it is personal preference.

You have changed your mind frequently though. If you are not sure what will happen, we can stop our discussion on this and leave that you think linear TV will be dead in 20 years, and I don't. Equally, if you speculate what you think will happen, anyone has the right to challenge your thought process. It is for you to convince me how streaming services will work, and how it will work as well as it does for everyone now.

Surely, if Sky offer bundles, people are not cutting the cord. People will still be paying high monthly subscriptions to a company. Lets say there are 10 streaming services on Sky (is that a fair number) all in full HD/4k at the low, low price of £2.99 per service, that is still £29.90 a month. Pretty much what people pay now, so how will that work for cord cutting?

Again, how will HBO make more money, and why will they change their business model? Their content is already available PPV, the day after the seasons end on Sky. I believe they have already stated they make more money from Sky than they could through a streaming service.

I am no maths expert, but I still figured out some figures ad hoc as I wrote, and they were expensive costs. Please take the time to figure out the costs for worldwide exclusive rights for the number of films and tv shows, from all the different movie studios and content providers. I am genuinely interested to see how much you think this will cost.

You missed my point on the ripping off. The price VM etc charge their customers for the lower package, covers the cost for that package alone. M customers, do not pay for Fox etc, so there is no profit for VM from Fox etc for those customers on M package. You said Netflix will gain more profit to pay for more content by getting customers to take out lower packages. The customers on lower packages will not contribute to the cost of new content, because they are not paying to watch that content. The only way Netflix will make money for the new content off of the lower price tier, is to put the prices up with out those customers getting any extra content. Much like VM have done recently, and look at the comments about it on here.

No-one, myself included, have denied changes will happen. I simply don't think linear TV will be dead in 20 years.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------

Indeed that is the case den, I await the next step of attempted brainwashing.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Why do you keep banging on to Harry about Sky's non premium channels.

Harry's Sky subscription offers him far more than just those channels for instance National Geographic , Discovery , History , W , Alibi , Gold , Fox , Comedy Central , SyFy , Universal , Eden and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

All the broadcasters available on pay tv combined put far more new content out than the streaming services you list.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OLD BOY may get a little bit excited by this ;):D

TV is changing to be more like Netflix

Read the full article first.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-...16-3?r=UK&IR=T