Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35984596)

No doubt about it MM.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35984591)

The article says it will be chargeable , if iPlayer just becomes catch-up and you have to pay for Brit box for boxsets then that's clearly a step back for license fee payers.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984597)

Did you also see that the Beeb were seeking Government approval to extend the existing 30 day limit on their catch-up fayre to 12 months on the i-Player? Surely, that is a plus.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984597)

The launch of Britbox UK will not affect either the BBC i-Player or the ITV Hub. In fact ITV is looking to make major improvements to the ITV Hub, which currently leaves much to be desired.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35984603)

Yes l saw that but don't think its a gimme that they will extend the limit to 12 months on the i-Player.

---------- Post added at 11:43 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------



Given ITV's track record so far in this field it will need huge improvements to make the ITV Hub a place where viewers want to go as currently its pretty much a shambles.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984586)

Call it 'speculation' on the part of the BBC if you want to, jfman, but it is what the BBC believe and it is with that in mind that they will be preparing their negotiations in ten years' time. That BBC view chimes with what the media industry believes. Why you continue to spit in the wind with your 'nothing will change' arguments, I cannot fathom.

You are correct in saying that DTT bandwidth has not been reallocated yet, but as that won't happen for some years yet, I don't think that is a relevant point. Incidentally, you may have overlooked the fact that this process has already commenced elsewhere in Europe.

Yes, I stand by my 'hardly stimulating' comment. That's not being rude to anyone, it's just a statement of fact. However, it is just as easy to click on a streaming service and click on the first programme you see on there as it is to select a channel and fall back in the armchair in a hypnotic state.

Your argument around Sky seems confused, as if the view you express invaliidates my argument. The existing satellite system will soon be complemented by an IPTV system, and although the two systems will exist side by side for probably a decade, it is very likely that their system will be IPTV only after that, when existing satellites are due for replacement. The IPTV system Sky design to replace satellite tv will be a better version of Now TV, and it will be based on the 'on demand' features rather than live tv. In the early days, of course, it will have both, with an ability to record the scheduled programmes. The design of it, I believe, will lead to a better acceptance of viewing by VOD.

Sky could retain Premiership sports rights now that they are a part of the larger Comcast stable, but that isn't guaranteed. It may be that BT is the first casualty of the increasing interest shown by the global streaming companies. If you really believe that Amazon and other companies don't have the financial clout to outbid either BT or Sky, you are deluding yourself.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35984602)

Thanks for the link , 12 months availability on iPlayer after broadcast would be very welcome.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984616)

Once again you are conflating huge cash reserves and profits for the ability to make a return on investment going forward. All of these companies have money now - the technology is there - but they don’t bid.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984615)

Catch-up will definitely be extended to a 12 month window on the i-Player IF the Government permits it. That's what the BBC is pushing for. I'm not sure that ITV would want to do thaton their ITV Hub, though, which is a shame. I won't shed any tears, though because I would never view a site with unskippable adverts. I don't see the need to subscribe to the ITV Hub+ either as everything on there has either been recorded or I don't want to see.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984586)

Yes, I stand by my 'hardly stimulating' comment. That's not being rude to anyone, it's just a statement of fact.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35984621)

It isn’t - it’s a statement of opinion that reveals nothing except your own preferences and prejudices.

Who are you to determine what other people should feel when they switch the TV on?

This, perhaps more than anything else, demonstrates why you’ve failed to convince anyone of anything despite running multiple versions of this thread over multiple forums over several years. You’ve never been able to get past the fact that other people have different experiences and tastes than you do.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984626)

I do accept that others have a different point of view, Chris. Isn't the point of a discussion forum that you express your view?

Incidentally, do you still stand by your comment, made a few years ago I think, that there will be insufficient electricity for on demand/streaming services to be viable as an alternative to broadcast TV in the future? Or have you had a subtle change of mind since then?

That certainly sounds crazy now.

Events will prove you wrong.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35984629)

If you find the post where I said that, you will also find the statistics I used to show that the UK national grid lacks the capacity to light up all the fibre that would be required to deliver the total viewing of all UK households over IP as opposed to the present mix of IP and broadcast. I actually don’t have the time or the inclination to do the work for you - feel free to search and post the link.

Sadly for you, “that certainly sounds crazy now” isn’t an effective counter-argument. What you need is some statistics showing projected growth in the UK’s energy production and distribution infrastructure. And while you’re at it, don’t forget to factor in other future uses of that infrastructure for which we are presently ill-prepared, principally charging all-electric vehicles.

Clearly you have plenty of time on your hands so I’m going to assume, if you don’t post the figures that back up your assertion, that you found the figures disagree with you.

Now, off you pop. :)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35984637)

Boom. ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984617)

I think so too. I will certainly record less as a result of such a decision. 4 weeks is too restrictive for me.

---------- Post added at 12:58 ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 ----------



They are not going to sink a shedload of money into it until superfast broadband is rolled out over the whole country. That's all that appears to be stopping them. Once they have the reach, watch this space.

Do I actually need to mention to you that the Britbox UK announcement is further evidence that on demand viewing/streaming is the future of TV? I still don't think you see it, do you, despite the substantial amount of evidence out there?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984641)

Why do they need superfast broadband to be rolled out further than it already is? If they are relying on the tiny minority of homes without adequate broadband to make or break their business model then the plans are already margonal at best. Those homes are already years behind in terms of the market emerging there.

It’s a red herring for the reality you ignore. The market simply doesn’t exist on the level you believe it does and you underestimate the main players now and their ability to adapt. Despite both Sky and Virgin being supported as part of wider media empires that have a worldwide business model relying upon it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984653)

As for the market not existing for streaming, do come off it! If Amazon, for example, took the lion's share of the rights to Premiership football, you would soon see the demand that you insist isn't there!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35984654)

Dream on OB as that seems to be another chapter of your imaginary tale..

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984653)

Incidentally, there are a number of streaming services that already cover sport, particularly in the US, so this 'adaptation' argument is the real red herring.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984655)

Until someone produces credible sums I’m not convinced that Amazon shareholders are going to see the kind of outlay in what’s ultimately a small market (26m homes max) on a global level. If they’d £4 billion to burn through I’m sure there’s far more profitable exercises they could undertake.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35984656)

You seem to delude yourself that what happens in the US happens here but what you don't understand is the British do things very much different from the Americans on many counts.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984665)

OFCOM claim that 95% of the households in the UK can get broadband speeds in excess of 24MB. That's more than enough to provide SVOD services if consumers are willing to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35984669)

That, as always, is an up to speed. What would happen if every one of those enabled homes simultaneously tried to utilise even 10Mbps, streaming to 2 or 3 devices? The reality of an entirely IP delivered TV system is that greater than 99% of all homes will need access to broadband that can deliver a minimum of 24Mbps, constantly, at all times of day.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35984669)

That, as always, is an up to speed. What would happen if every one of those enabled homes simultaneously tried to utilise even 10Mbps, streaming to 2 or 3 devices? The reality of an entirely IP delivered TV system is that greater than 99% of all homes will need access to broadband that can deliver a minimum of 24Mbps, constantly, at all times of day.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984673)

Happy to be corrected if so, but the report I read did appear to indicate that is the minimum speed homes could expect to get (assuming they pick the premium products available at their exchange or are served by Virgin Media).

I don't believe an all streaming future is credible for a number of reasons which I've posted at length about. However, I don't accept that Amazon or anyone else isn't able to offer a premium product including Premiership rights because the internet speeds aren't fast enough to support it. Such a product wouldn't require 2 or 3 connections at once per household in the same way as an all streaming future would.

You are correct though - the barrier to have multiple screens showing different content in HD and UHD will mean that for some time traditional broadcast methods over satellite and cable will be the used.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984670)

Oh, Den, you are so parochial!

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------



What about the outcry there would be from Sky Sports subscribers who could not receive the new football streaming service? Best to wait until the job is done, don't you think?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984676)

I'm quite sure that the capitalists at Amazon aren't holding off on this lucrative venture because of the small number of Sky Sports subscribers who can't get adequate broadband.

Sky didn't hold off because of the number of homes without direct line of sight to a satellite dish, in conservation areas or because landlords sometimes don't allow tenants to install a dish.

There's plenty of outcries to be had out there because Sky increase their content, but as Neil Diamond sings money talks.

Similarly there'd be nothing preventing an Amazon channel getting carriage on Sky or Virgin Media to complement its streaming offering, priced at a premium and obviously a second class product by comparison. Yet... they don't.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984676)

Even if solved the basics of economics will always apply. There's no indication that they can offer a product cheaper or better offering the same content as Sky and turn a profit in doing so.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984670)

Oh, Den, you are so parochial!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984679)

If only Sky offered a way you could buy Sky Sports only. Like a day pass, or a monthly pass without having to commit to a 12 month contract or a basic TV package. It'd introduce so many new entrants into the market presently excluded.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35984685)

I would be happy to sign a 12 month contract for sky sports only if I could, unfortunately they are allowed to make you pay for a load of rubbish channels I never watch - most of which are on freeview anyway.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984686)

From time to time Now TV do offers on Sky Sports for 9/12 months that average £20 a month. Usually around the F1 season start and Christmas.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35984685)

I would be happy to sign a 12 month contract for sky sports only if I could, unfortunately they are allowed to make you pay for a load of rubbish channels I never watch - most of which are on freeview anyway.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984697)

Precisely a product currently on the market, old boy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984700)

At a whopping price, though. Sky have priced a lot of people who want to see football out of the game.

Lower the price, get more customers, make more money.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35984702)

Sky has a team of pricing analysts who calculate the prices that maximise profit.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35984702)

Sky has a team of pricing analysts who calculate the prices that maximise profit.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35984707)

Another way of saying the maximum they can get away with.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984700)

At a whopping price, though. Sky have priced a lot of people who want to see football out of the game.

Lower the price, get more customers, make more money.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35984705)

Strange how OB very much espouses free market economics and yet criticises Sky for making a reasonable profit and for setting their prices too high.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35984707)

Another way of saying the maximum they can get away with.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35984708)

Just like any other company then.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984717)

Only if those customers are actually there. As has been pointed out Sky routinely charge £20 a month on Now TV for sports only, and heavily discount their premium product from time to time to attract new customers and retain existing customers on an ad hoc basis.

At £15 a month a service selling only Premiership football would need 8.3 million subscribers per month just to cover the costs of the rights. This ignores production costs, marketing costs and taxes. Are there enough people out there willing to pay this just for Premiership football and nothing else?

Does a £15 price point really introduce it to a significantly bigger market than £20 for an all round sports product?

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35984601)

All the more reason to get rid of the TV license.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984719)

Not at all. I am simply saying that there are different approaches to pricing.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------



Got it in one, pip. Sky has form.

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------



True, but that's where competition comes in and sooner or later, competition will bring those prices down.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------



That is a very inflexible approach. There are opportunities to provide 'skinny' bundles of selected matches over the year at a reduced price which would attract more customers, enable other TV channels to purchase non-exclusive rights to a limited number of selected games, etc. It is not just a stark case of 15 quid a month for 8.3 million subscribers. You haven't even added income from advertisements into that figure.

As far as Amazon is concerned, because Prime is linked to their retail operation, it is quite possible that they may be happy to simply break even if it brought in more customers for their central business.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35984756)

You'd hope so but I'm sure the BBC will be fine with simply charging people twice instead

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984586)

Sky could retain Premiership sports rights now that they are a part of the larger Comcast stable, but that isn't guaranteed. It may be that BT is the first casualty of the increasing interest shown by the global streaming companies. If you really believe that Amazon and other companies don't have the financial clout to outbid either BT or Sky, you are deluding yourself.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984616)

Once again you are conflating huge cash reserves and profits for the ability to make a return on investment going forward. All of these companies have money now - the technology is there - but they don’t bid.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986415)

Just noticed this debate from a few weeks ago about sports rights and streaming:They do bid, though. Amazon has grabbed a package of premiership rights, albeit a lowly one. And why do you think they won't make a return on their investment?

Of course, nothing is definite here, but I'd suggest that by grabbing one package of football rights and showing other sports from boxing to golf, Amazon has clearly shown it is VERY interested in sports.

If the streaming companies and especially the tech companies like Amazon and Apple get serious about sports, that will blow the current pay tv model out of the window. Sky and BT simply cannot compete against the likes of Apple and Amazon.

Apple's streaming service launches in a few weeks, so we'll get a idea about how serious they are about streaming then.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986442)

I think Amazon were just testing the waters with grabbing that package of matches, but the real money will be made if they really go for it in the future and outbid Sky and BT for top premiership packages.

On paying for different streamers, if anyone wants all content at all times, then it will get very expensive, but if most people are prepared to cherry pick what streamers they want in any given period, it maybe much cheaper than today's pay tv bundles.

The only caveat I'd add to that, is sport. If sport is on several different streamers and people want to watch all their live sports, which I'd imagine they'd want to rather than watching things several months after they've been shown, that could become hideously expensive. I'm interested to see what Disley does with sports streaming considering they own ESPN.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986451)

None of the global streamers want to pay vast sums for rights that are only available to people living in the UK it's simply not worth it.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986453)

I agree. As I said, that Amazon bid was testing the waters, but I think they've already shown their hand as to their future intentions and it won't be just limited to one country.

Originally Posted by alwaysabear (Post 35986421)

From memory the package that Amazon brought , was originally left unsold in the rights bidding, as no one was prepared to pay the amount required. It was then picked up by Amazon a greatly reduced price. It will be interesting to see how they make money out of one round of matches.
I cannot see consumers spending a small fortune for different streaming companies content. The only way it will be cost effective for the consumer will be for the streamers to be bundled together as linear channels are now.

Originally Posted by alwaysabear (Post 35986455)

So are you suggesting someone like Amazon will try to bid for worldwide rights?

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986460)

Yep. The streamers are already doing it with tv drama and films, sports is the next battleground.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986460)

Yep. The streamers are already doing it with tv drama and films, sports is the next battleground.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986463)

Sports is completely different , the streamers can do what they want but at the end of the day it's the rights holders calling the shots.

Originally Posted by alwaysabear (Post 35986465)

I don't think one Company could afford the risk. The Worldwide rights just for Premier League would break the bank and would not be allowed by the authorities.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986479)

Multiple billion pound bid ?

You do realise that both BT and Sky combined are paying the Premier League nearly £4.6 billion in its latest rights deal.

The Middle East and China plus other overseas markets are growth markets sum netting the Premier League nearly double the previous rights , I can't see the league commuting all their global rights to one provider it just wouldn't make sense.

As for bundling multi billion dollar UK rights into a Prime subscription how much is that likely to push up Prime especially for those who don't like Football.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986471)

.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

Amazon and Apple are trillion dollar companies and no doubt, Google and Microsoft not far behind.

Why would the authorities get involved?

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986479)

Multiple billion pound bid ?

You do realise that both BT and Sky combined are paying the Premier League nearly £4.6 billion in its latest rights deal.

The Middle East and China plus other overseas markets are growth markets some netting the Premier League nearly double the previous rights , I can't see the league committing all their global rights to one provider it just wouldn't make sense.

As for bundling multi billion dollar UK rights into a Prime subscription how much is that likely to push up Prime especially for those who don't like Football.

Originally Posted by alwaysabear (Post 35986486)

No one company is allowed to have exclusivity in the UK market as I am sure you must be aware. Not sure what the competition law is around the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986580)

Amazon don't try to do outdo Netflix in streaming so I'm struggling to believe they are going to pay north of £5 billion for UK football rights.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986559)

I agree with Horizon. The streaming companies are the great disrupters of our time.

As far as Amazon is concerned, I don't think they will expect all their Prime customers to pay for the sport, any more than Sky or BT do now. Almost certainly, it will be an add-on for those who want it, maybe tied to other benefits.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986587)

You know and l know its pie in the sky and always has been MM.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986705)

Then why have they got involved in sports? In fact, why have they got involved in streaming at all, if not to be a sizeable player? And I agree with the previous comment that they haven't outdone Netflix on streaming, so why are they bothering?

They're about to release a very expensive Lord of the Rings series, so very mixed messages coming from them. At least with Netflix, a pure streaming company, we know they're serious about streaming, but Amazon wants to be top dog in everything, so I'm not going to rule them out anytime soon.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986710)

l am talking in particular about the UK Premier League football TV rights as they are not going to pay £5 billion just for just one countries football rights as it makes no business sense to them at all and never has done wherever with the Lord of the Rings series they are likely to get their money back again and again through the many monetary avenues that are open to them.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986740)

Do you really imagine that Sky and BT have bigger pockets than Amazon, Den?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986740)

The only question really is WHETHER they could outbid them, not whether tney COULD.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986741)

You still don't get it do you OB as you have little understanding of what Amazon's business model is based on and one of the things it is not based on is forking out £5 billion for UK Premier League TV rights...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986745)

Which paragraph in their business model says that, Den?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986745)

I understand that you don't think it will happen, but no need to make stuff up.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986747)

You obviously have no understanding of the UK Premier League football rights market that is quite clear to see.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986745)

but no need to make stuff up.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986749)

Den OB has a very simplified way of looking at most business things.

It usually goes something like Company A has far more money than company B and could blow them out the water end of.:D

ESPN owned by Disney had far greater resources than both Sky and BT but retreated from the UK Sports market.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986747)

You obviously have no understanding of the UK Premier League football rights market that is quite clear to see.

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 ----------



l see as is this not the person "who confidently predicted" for the last three Premier league rights auctions who said Amazon was going to blow Sky and BT out of the water with regards to those rights.

Answers on a postcard if you have a answer to that one..

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986750)

Oh dear it seems your motto is if someone disagrees with you , please revert to plan B and accuse them of making it all up..

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986750)

Indeed MM he seems to have forgotten that for some absurd reason but l am glad you came along to just to awaken his memory.:D

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986749)

Den OB has a very simplified way of looking at most business things.

It usually goes something like Company A has far more money than company B and could blow them out the water end of.:D

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986749)

ESPN owned by Disney had far greater resources than both Sky and BT but retreated from the UK Sports market.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986710)

l am talking in particular about the UK Premier League football TV rights as they are not going to pay £5 billion just for just one countries football rights as it makes no business sense to them at all and never has done wherever with the Lord of the Rings series they are likely to get their money back again and again through the many monetary avenues that are open to them.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986527)

If Amazon offered a lot more than the £4.6billion, I think the Premier League would seriously consider it, yes. Better to deal with one company, than dozens of them.

On UK rights, I would expect Amazon to play some trickery pokery with bundling, to mask the costs to the consumer in the same way that Sky etc do with their bundles.

---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:45 ----------

The tech companies have a lot of dosh, some of that no doubt would be spent on lobbying politicians. But I agree, its a hurdle for now.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986757)

Your posts, I'm afraid, are totally devoid of evidence. What I actually said was that Amazon or one of the other streaming services were likely to make a serious bid for the Premiership rights either in the last bidding round or the next one.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986757)

Your posts, I'm afraid, are totally devoid of evidence. What I actually said was that Amazon or one of the other streaming services were likely to make a serious bid for the Premiership rights either in the last bidding round or the next one.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986757)

Well, that's the only logical explanation. Why not prove me wrong and supply the evidence?

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35986807)

So how customised are your Netflix and Amazon packages, OB?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986757)

I am happy to accept your opinion, Den, but when you make a statement about Amazon's business model preventing them from doing something, one does expect you to be able to back this up with facts to support your argument.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986757)

No, haven't forgotten. But it doesn't prove that Amazon will never compete for the PL, does it?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986814)

There is certainly a lot of content I don't watch on Netflix and Amazon, but then there is a tremendous amount of material that I have selected for my watchlists and at only a fraction of the price I am paying for cabletv channels.

I must say that I find it incredible that pay tv channels (premium channels excepted) have so few good programmes compared with the 'free' BBC, ITV and Channel 4 channels. You would expect to get better quality by paying for something as opposed to any free options, wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35986819)

The BBC isn’t free and has a huge taxpayer funded budget. I’d fully expect it to have better programming (in general entertainment terms) than the vast majority of pay channels.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986814)

There is certainly a lot of content I don't watch on Netflix and Amazon, but then there is a tremendous amount of material that I have selected for my watchlists and at only a fraction of the price I am paying for cabletv channels.

I must say that I find it incredible that pay tv channels (premium channels excepted) have so few good programmes compared with the 'free' BBC, ITV and Channel 4 channels. You would expect to get better quality by paying for something as opposed to any free options, wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35986830)

Your definition of 'good programmes' is just that - yours, others may consider these as rubbish.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986817)

My arguments are backed up by clear inescapable facts which you have palpably chosen to ignore because of what you believe in.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35986819)

The BBC isn’t free and has a huge taxpayer funded budget. I’d fully expect it to have better programming (in general entertainment terms) than the vast majority of pay channels.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35986821)

Oh it does but what else can you expect from someone with a anti BBC agenda.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35986824)

Additionally, ITV have a budget from advertising larger than most of the third party channels put together.

The irony being it’s from advertising. From where people sit down and watch linear TV live. A shocking proposition, truly shocking!

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35986830)

Your definition of 'good programmes' is just that - yours, others may consider these as rubbish.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986837)

Which facts? Quoting the past does not prove the future.

---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------



That's why 'free' was in inverted commas. You know the point I was making.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986841)

Yes, but they don't charge a subscription, do they?[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986841)

I am not anti-BBC at all. I have criticised them for their spending waste, that's all. Getting free of the licence fee will give them more scope to develop all their ideas for the future.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------



Yes, but they don't charge a subscription, do they?

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------



I don't call programmes I don't watch 'rubbish'. Only those programmes where the quality standard is painfully low.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35986789)

They cannot obtain exclusive UK rights as already stated. Doesn't matter how much they pay it isn't allowed

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35986809)

Horizon

A few points ,

The tech giants you talk about , how's YouTube Premium going for Google ? Amazon's streaming service still doesn't compete or come near to that of Netflix. How many would subscribe if it wasn't for the bundled benefits of Prime. I have Amazon Prime and we rarely watch or find much worth watching on the service and that includes the kids.

Streamers may get interested if Sports rights were available globally but under the current territory by territory basis no chance they pay north of £5 billion just for the UK rights. Facebook and Twitter have both dabbled with content but had little success.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35986795)

I’d be more interested if the 62% actually cancelled. By their nature bundles often aren’t customised - fully customised bundles aren’t really bundles at all.

I still haven’t seen any credible calculations of how £5bn on Premiership football rights is profitable for Amazon (or anyone else) based on current (or even hypothetical) pricing. They aren’t a charity after all.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35986982)

I agree. I doubt any government would change the rules anytime soon, but that still leaves open the door for Amazon (or someone else) to bid for a higher packages next time around.

As I said, in regards to global rights for sports, Amazon would likely target something like the World cup and/or Olympics.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

But then lets turn the question around. Leave aside exclusive rights to the football, which I agree is unlikely in the near term, if Amazon (or whoever it might be) won one or more packages of football rights and had it as a £10 add on to their current Prime sub, wouldn't all those people who currently pay BT and Sky switch over to Amazon?

If Amazon chose to do so, it could easily outbid Sky and BT. Whether it actually does, remains to be seen, but I don't see their interest in sports going away anytime soon, do you?

---------- Post added at 15:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ----------

If we take the States as an example here, Sky and VM might go back to smaller bundles to compete, or again, copy what's happening in some places in the States and offer a la carte packages where you do choose what channels you want.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35987221)

What if Amazon just offered a £10 footie sub?