Cable Forum
Page 7 of 13 « First 3456 7 891011 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Other Digital TV Services Discussion (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   The future of television (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709854)

OLD BOY 14-12-2022 20:42
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141863)
So linear channels in all but name will exist.
If you want to put it that way, yes, but my prediction relates to existing channels. I’ve explained this before, but just to remind you:

Channels like BBC1, BBC 2, etc will disappear and instead content will be categorised by genre. Davie has said so. All the content will be under the corporate BBC brand.

Similarly all Sky channels will be under a general Sky banner (there may be a further division for Sky Sports).

I have never made an assumption that live programming won’t be available - that is just a twist that others have made. How would that ever make sense? Live programming will, of course, continue to exist and will be accessed in much the same way as existing PPV programming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141863)
Do you even know what the Government targets are for broadband rollout, OB?
Yes. The nationwide gigabit-broadband rollout should be completed by 2025 under the government’s manifesto (recognise that date?). That target was revised to a minimum of 85% of premises by 2025. The Levelling Up White Paper published earlier this year published a new target - at least 99% by 2030.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141863)

It’s an important distinction OB that your belief has an ever increasing number of caveats while the rest of us are comfortable in our own analysis as we have been throughout. Too many dependencies - public and private sector investment, regulatory intervention and consumer behaviour are required to hit a target we believe is wholly unrealistic.
I based my prediction on the ‘knowns’ at the time. It doesn’t require a genius to understand that if the ‘knowns’ become uncertain and then change, this will impact on the original prediction.

Nobody can predict the future with the kind of precision you seem to expect. Everything depends on the circumstances that make that prediction possible remaining appreciably the same.

Whatever happens now, I am quite pleased that we are well on the way to getting to where I said we would be, even if it takes slightly longer to get there through policy changes.

Hugh 14-12-2022 20:44
Re: The future of television
 
So, like we have said all along, linear channels will still exist, alongside other methods of delivery.

It's good to know that you are willing to change your mind from what you posted in August 2017...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...s#post35913670

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35913670)
None of these, sadly. :(

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:50 ----------


Er, when did I say that linear TV (from which I take it we are referring to the traditional broadcast channels) are dying? And what has that to do with my post about Amazon not appearing on the V6? You keep saying that there are many ways to access Amazon, and of course you are correct in saying that. In fact I have three ways of accessing it right now. However, none of these methods allow me to bookmark Amazon content in 'My Shows' on the V6. That, and that alone, is my point.

There is no contradiction in my message, Den, but you do seem to be confusing completely what I have said.

Just for the record, I have said that the future of TV is on demand/streaming services, which is supported by many people in the industry. For now, the conventional channels are thriving, but this will not last. My view that linear channels will die off is based on what I believe will have happened by about 2036. So not to worry, we're not there yet and you can rest easy! :Sun:

Glad we are all in agreement.

Paul 14-12-2022 20:46
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141873)
Glad we are all in agreement.
:D

OLD BOY 14-12-2022 20:47
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141873)
So, like we have said all along, linear channels will still exist, alongside other methods of delivery.

Glad we are all in agreement.
That doubt I have never had myself. It’s a wild assumption or leg-pulling by others that this is what I have argued. I’ve been trying to explain my position on this for years, but I’m glad it’s got through at last.

Hugh 14-12-2022 20:49
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141875)
That doubt I have never had myself. It’s a wild assumption or leg-pulling by others that this is what I have argued. I’ve been trying to explain my position on this for years, but I’m glad it’s got through at last.
<>cough cough>

Quote:
My view that linear channels will die off is based on what I believe will have happened by about 2036.
<cough cough>

jfman 14-12-2022 21:13
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141871)
If you want to put it that way, yes, but my prediction relates to existing channels. I’ve explained this before, but just to remind you:

Channels like BBC1, BBC 2, etc will disappear and instead content will be categorised by genre. Davie has said so. All the content will be under the corporate BBC brand.

Similarly all Sky channels will be under a general Sky banner (there may be a further division for Sky Sports).

I have never made an assumption that live programming won’t be available - that is just a twist that others have made. How would that ever make sense? Live programming will, of course, continue to exist and will be accessed in much the same way as existing PPV programming.
Your own contortions are the only “twist” here. Live sport doesn’t have to be broadcast on a linear channel at all, it can be a pop up stream within an app.

However what a linear channel offers is convenience. That’s why people consistently use them.

Quote:
Yes. The nationwide gigabit-broadband rollout should be completed by 2025 under the government’s manifesto (recognise that date?). That target was revised to a minimum of 85% of premises by 2025. The Levelling Up White Paper published earlier this year published a new target - at least 99% by 2030.
Can you provide a link for the 99% claim? I have had a look and can only find “nationwide”. Forgive me for being pedantic but that doesn’t mean every premise, or even 99% of them. A percentage in every local authority, every constituency, etc. could meet the qualification while being below 99%.

Given the squeezes on the commercial sector with borrowing getting more expensive, and squeeze on public finances for those who buy into that, where is the investment going to come from? It’s not unreasonable to be sceptical given the scale of the task.

Add into that the take up of such services among an ever squeezed public at large.

Quote:
I based my prediction on the ‘knowns’ at the time. It doesn’t require a genius to understand that if the ‘knowns’ become uncertain and then change, this will impact on the original prediction.
An entirely speculative post cannot be based upon “knowns”.

Quote:
Nobody can predict the future with the kind of precision you seem to expect. Everything depends on the circumstances that make that prediction possible remaining appreciably the same.

Whatever happens now, I am quite pleased that we are well on the way to getting to where I said we would be, even if it takes slightly longer to get there through policy changes.
:rofl:

Some time after 2035 and a considerable time beyond 2025 , claiming linear over the internet as a win is quite a stretch, OB. I say that as an avid follower of your claims for 8 years now. (If of course even that happens).

Chris 15-12-2022 08:35
Re: The future of television
 
So, I’ve just had a little down time over breakfast to read Tim Davie’s speech in full. There is literally nothing in it at all that supports OB’s fanciful futurology.

Davie doesn’t even predict that the BBC will be IP only by 2030, nor that it wants to be. The date is a shorthand for ‘the next decade’. A fairly standard oratorical device. If the context wasn’t sufficient to demonstrate that, then there’s also the fact, already noted above, that the UK’s broadband landscape in 2030 is highly unlikely to support it. The BBC will go IP only at some point but no date is predicted. Makes you wonder what OB thinks he knows that the BBC Director General doesn’t.

Tim Davie predicts fewer linear channels for the BBC but not an end to them. In fact the persistence of some linear channels is an active part of the plan, not a compromise forced by technological limitations.

The BBC is not planning for a paywalled, subscription-only future, and nor is it warning especially loudly about that possibility. Davie makes the case for universality in his speech but it’s pretty obvious he thinks the benefits of universality are obvious enough that there’s no serious risk of the BBC losing it in the next charter settlement.

Lest we forget, OB’s original prediction was that the UK’s fairly imminent TV future was going to be entirely on the Netflix model, namely video on demand via the internet. That is absolutely not the future that the BBC is planning for. The BBC sees a need to continue providing linear schedules, even while moving its distribution method to IP - and that can’t occur as soon as the next 10 years, surprise surprise, for many of the reasons the rest of us laid out when this whole discussion started, something like 7 years and goodness knows how many threads ago.

Game, set and match. Thank you and goodnight.

OLD BOY 15-12-2022 10:06
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141873)
So, like we have said all along, linear channels will still exist, alongside other methods of delivery.

It's good to know that you are willing to change your mind from what you posted in August 2017...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...s#post35913670




Glad we are all in agreement.
Another silly misinterpretation. You, I think, are now referring to FAST channels, not the channels in our existing EPGs. I maintain that if we do go IP only, there will be no need to have these separate channels and that all content will be grouped under the name of the provider and they will be on demand (with live events streamed).

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141878)
Your own contortions are the only “twist” here. Live sport doesn’t have to be broadcast on a linear channel at all, it can be a pop up stream within an app.

However what a linear channel offers is convenience. That’s why people consistently use them.
You are the one contorting. I agree that sport can be a pop-up stream within an app. I’m not sure why you thought I was saying it wasn’t the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141878)

Can you provide a link for the 99% claim? I have had a look and can only find “nationwide”. Forgive me for being pedantic but that doesn’t mean every premise, or even 99% of them. A percentage in every local authority, every constituency, etc. could meet the qualification while being below 99%.

Given the squeezes on the commercial sector with borrowing getting more expensive, and squeeze on public finances for those who buy into that, where is the investment going to come from? It’s not unreasonable to be sceptical given the scale of the task.

Add into that the take up of such services among an ever squeezed public at large.
For someone who claims I am pulling everything out of thin air and not doing my research, that is an extraordinary claim.

I will humour you this time.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-8392/

Read and inwardly digest.

Government targets
The Government’s manifesto commitment was to deliver nationwide gigabit-broadband by 2025. That target was revised in November 2020 to a minimum of 85% of premises by 2025.

The Levelling Up White Paper published in February 2022 set a new target: for gigabit-broadband to be available nationwide by 2030. Nationwide coverage means “at least 99%” of premises.

The Government says it remains committed to meet 85% of premises by 2025. The ‘nationwide-by-2030’ target therefore puts a timeline for connecting the remaining 15% of premises, which will mostly require public funding support.

The 2030 target is considered more realistic by industry stakeholders but the delay from 2025 has been described as a “blow to rural communities”. The Government says the revised targets reflect how quickly industry could build in hard to reach areas requiring public funding alongside their commercial roll-out.

The Public Accounts Committee said in January 2022 that it was “not convinced” that the Government was on track to meet its targets and that its approach to gigabit-broadband roll-out “risks perpetuating digital inequality across the UK”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141878)


An entirely speculative post cannot be based upon “knowns”.
:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141878)

Some time after 2035 and a considerable time beyond 2025 , claiming linear over the internet as a win is quite a stretch, OB. I say that as an avid follower of your claims for 8 years now. (If of course even that happens).
Stop playing games. The date I am committed to is 2035, based on the facts not changing. If I am one or two years adrift, fine - who cares? The thrust of my argument would have been correct.

More correct than all those siren voices who have been telling me over the years that it would never happen at all.

---------- Post added at 10:06 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141876)
<>cough cough>



<cough cough>
Have you got Covid, Hugh? Stay indoors, keep warm, there’s a good chap.

Hugh 15-12-2022 10:38
Re: The future of television
 
For clarification about FAST (Free ad-supported streaming TV) channels...

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2022/11...vertisers-care

Quote:
Free ad-supported streaming TV (Fast) channels are, as the name suggests, free and funded by ads, and they now populate internet-connected TVs in their thousands. To viewers, they’re almost indistinguishable from linear channels of old, but instead of being broadcast, all of their content is streamed. To broadcasters, they’re inexpensive, flexible and easy enough to stock with library content.
Quote:
Richard Young, who is director of syndication at Little Dot Studios, is responsible for running the company’s seven Fast channels (Real Stories, Timeline, Wonder, Real Crime, Real Wild, Real Life and Don’t Tell the Bride). “What we’ve forgotten in the move to AVOD and SVOD is that people actually quite like channels and that is happening across all demographic groups,” he says.

The issue of discoverability on SVOD is a known risk to advertisers. A survey by Now (formerly Now TV) found that nearly half of viewers have at some point decided not to view TV after failing to find something to watch. “People like the experience where they don’t have to search for content, where someone is programming it for them and they can lean back and be entertained,” says Young.
https://www.muvi.com/blogs/fast-channel.html

Quote:
What is the future of FAST channels?
The FAST market is booming and in the last 3 years, it has given birth to 20 FAST service providers in the US with a span of over 1000 channels. The future of FAST is bright because it is providing a massive opportunity for media distributors to explore new revenue streams and reach a new base of audience digitally.

The universal spread of on-demand services in past years has led to – choice fatigue in consumers. Therefore, nowadays they are searching for a lean-back, passive viewing experience. Consumers are also preferring to choose an ad-supported format to eliminate subscription charges.

With abundant internet connectivity, connected TV devices are dominating the market. Content providers can use this opportunity to align with the evolving consumption habits and convey an unparalleled scale of video content over IP.


Conclusion
FAST is rapidly gaining traction and becoming a popular consumption format for several users globally. It can be a revenue game-changer for content distributors or media companies that are ready to act immediately. If media owners don’t aim to capture maximum eyeballs, then they are at the risk of missing out on the emerging opportunity of exploring new revenue streams.
So this new, fast growing market won't exist in 12 years, according to OB...

Quote:
You, I think, are now referring to FAST channels, not the channels in our existing EPGs. I maintain that if we do go IP only, there will be no need to have these separate channels

OLD BOY 15-12-2022 11:37
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141901)
For clarification about FAST (Free ad-supported streaming TV) channels...

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2022/11...vertisers-care





https://www.muvi.com/blogs/fast-channel.html



So this new, fast growing market won't exist in 12 years, according to OB...
As you know, I was not referring to FAST channels in my original posts. These are are relatively new phenomenon and to be honest, I don’t think they will stay the course once on demand becomes a more natural means of watching TV.

They may survive, but I don’t see them attracting anywhere near the number of viewers as the channels on our EPGs get, and the lesser viewed ones are barely keeping going, aren’t they?

The FAST channels are cheap to run and presumably, therefore, they won’t need so many viewers to keep them financially viable, but we’ll see.

Hugh 15-12-2022 12:10
Re: The future of television
 
That’s the point most of have been making for the last seven years - things change, so making dogmatic predictions that things will come about by a certain date is "brave*" and "courageous*".

And, tbf, some of your recent predictions proved to be not congruent with actuality… ;)


*as in "Yes, Minister"

jfman 15-12-2022 12:17
Re: The future of television
 
Scheduled linear television over the internet is a new phenomenon???

Chris 15-12-2022 12:27
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141902)
As you know, I was not referring to FAST channels in my original posts. These are are relatively new phenomenon and to be honest, I don’t think they will stay the course once on demand becomes a more natural means of watching TV.

They may survive, but I don’t see them attracting anywhere near the number of viewers as the channels on our EPGs get, and the lesser viewed ones are barely keeping going, aren’t they?

The FAST channels are cheap to run and presumably, therefore, they won’t need so many viewers to keep them financially viable, but we’ll see.
FAST channels are made possible by exactly the same technology that supports VOD. They are delivered over IP and are available on exactly the same TVs that support Netflix etc. People are generally getting easy access to them at the same time as they’re getting easy access to Netflix, via integrated apps and fast home internet connections.

People who are choosing to watch them are choosing them even though the streaming apps are right there and just as accessible.

The companies delivering them have now formally identified, by research, the problem several of us pointed out to you years ago, and have given it a name: ‘discoverability’. Forcing people to search and make playlists leads to *less* TV viewing, not more. Lots of people *want* to come home from work and enjoy a programme that has been curated for them.

And yet you *still* think on demand is going to become ‘more natural’ at some point.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Paul 15-12-2022 13:03
Re: The future of television
 
Can someone please define "linear channel" :)

Hugh 15-12-2022 13:17
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36141917)
Can someone please define "linear channel" :)
Content/programmes watched at a set time and on a set TV channel.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionar...vision-channel

Quote:
Linear Television Channel means a channel, network or programming service that Broadcasts Audiovisual Content in a manner that is linear-streamed, programmed and transmitted to viewers in a continuous and sequential manner, scheduled by the channel, network or programming service (and not by the viewer) during a significant majority of each consecutive twenty-four hour period.
Or…

From a previous post/thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36057691)
Linear means what Old Boy wants it to mean at the time - Schrödinger‘s linear (the outcome will depend on the observer)...

Paul 15-12-2022 13:26
Re: The future of television
 
So the important point is that if a programme is scheduled on a "channel" at Wednesday, 9pm, and you dont watch it at 9pm on Wednesday, you have missed it (unless its scheduled to be repeated at some other time). Also, it doesnt matter how its delivered, just the fixed timing ?

Chris 15-12-2022 14:31
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36141920)
So the important point is that if a programme is scheduled on a "channel" at Wednesday, 9pm, and you dont watch it at 9pm on Wednesday, you have missed it (unless its scheduled to be repeated at some other time). Also, it doesnt matter how its delivered, just the fixed timing ?
If you don’t watch it at 9pm on Wednesday you can use your PVR, or catch up stream if it exists … what’s important is that the TV station organises a broadcast schedule. It doesn’t matter how it’s broadcast - the BBC One IP stream accessed via iPlayer is still a linear TV channel, showing the news, then the One Show, followed by ‘Enders and whatever else, and even though you can select stuff on demand from the same app.

The two key questions this and similar threads have tried to address over the years are:

1. Will traditional broadcast over satellite and terrestrial eventually be shut down in favour of exclusively IP delivery?
2. Will IP delivered content be scheduled, on demand, or a mixture of both?

OLD BOY 15-12-2022 15:02
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141909)
That’s the point most of have been making for the last seven years - things change, so making dogmatic predictions that things will come about by a certain date is "brave*" and "courageous*".

And, tbf, some of your recent predictions proved to be not congruent with actuality… ;)


*as in "Yes, Minister"
So, on this forum, nobody wants to discuss what might happen in the future. OK, message received, over and out.

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36141924)
If you don’t watch it at 9pm on Wednesday you can use your PVR, or catch up stream if it exists … what’s important is that the TV station organises a broadcast schedule. It doesn’t matter how it’s broadcast - the BBC One IP stream accessed via iPlayer is still a linear TV channel, showing the news, then the One Show, followed by ‘Enders and whatever else, and even though you can select stuff on demand from the same app.

The two key questions this and similar threads have tried to address over the years are:

1. Will traditional broadcast over satellite and terrestrial eventually be shut down in favour of exclusively IP delivery?
2. Will IP delivered content be scheduled, on demand, or a mixture of both?
Questions that no-one on this forum seems to want the answer to, or even discuss properly, except to insist nothing will change. This is despite the changes along that road fitting pretty well with a prediction I made seven years ago now, when forum members thought the whole idea of on demand viewing becoming a preferred means of watching TV in the future was nonsense and couldn’t be supported anyway due to a lack of electricity.

Those comments seem rather silly now, but there you are. Wallow in the past and present if you want to, but I like to look at what may be coming down the road.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that FAST channels are linear channels (I never said they were not) - what I am saying is that I believe the main channels on our EPG’s will be grouped under one brand in future and will be available on demand only. I’m at a loss as to why some people cannot grasp that simple concept. Instead, people are obsessing over whether a method of delivery is linear or not (etc, etc) and conflating what I have said into something completely different.

Is it so difficult to grasp the concept of EPG channels being on demand only, with content accessed by category rather than channel? In the end, that is all I am saying. FAST channels may or may not survive in the long term and I have not formed a firm view on whether they will survive or whether this is just a transitional phenomenon.

Anyway, enough. If all people want to do is argue and ridicule, I guess it’s pretty pointless trying to explain it any further. Only the passage of time will confirm what will happen. I’ve told you what I think. Make of it what you will.

---------- Post added at 15:02 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36141920)
So the important point is that if a programme is scheduled on a "channel" at Wednesday, 9pm, and you dont watch it at 9pm on Wednesday, you have missed it (unless its scheduled to be repeated at some other time). Also, it doesnt matter how its delivered, just the fixed timing ?
Yes, basically, but I would add that you can also record it.

It most certainly doesn’t really matter how content is delivered. All I have done is to say how I believe it will be delivered in the future.

Hugh 15-12-2022 15:03
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141925)
So, on this forum, nobody wants to discuss what might happen in the future. OK, message received, over and out.
We’re happy to discuss possible futures, options, differences of opinions in what might happen in this (and other) areas.

Unfortunately, on this topic, you’re not - you’ve not just drawn a line in the sand about the future of linear programming, you’ve dug a 50 foot ditch, filled it with water and sharks, put minefields, barbed wire fences, and machine-gun towers either side of the ditch, then played loud music over the speakers on the towers so as not to be influenced by anything anyone else contributes… ;)

OLD BOY 15-12-2022 15:13
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141911)
Scheduled linear television over the internet is a new phenomenon???
I didn’t say that. What is new is the variation of ‘themed’ FAST channels such as those listed on Pluto TV. And yes, these are linear channels over the internet, but that is not what I have been referring to in my prediction. My focus is the existing EPG channels.

But you know that.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141930)
We’re happy to discuss possible futures, options, differences of opinions in what might happen in this (and other) areas.

Unfortunately, on this topic, you’re not - you’ve not just drawn a line in the sand about the future of linear programming, you’ve dug a 50 foot ditch, filled it with water and sharks, put minefields, barbed wire fences, and machine-gun towers either side of the ditch, then played loud music over the speakers on the towers so as not to be influenced by anything anyone else contributes… ;)
I’m trying to have a discussion, but nobody seems to want to discuss it. The whole idea is anathema to you guys!

I have answered all the relevant points that have been put to me but it’s as if I haven’t said anything, and the constant repetition of what I am supposed to have said when I have repeated time and again that is untrue, shows that people on here are not listening.

Chris 15-12-2022 15:14
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141931)
I didn’t say that. What is new is the variation of ‘themed’ FAST channels such as those listed on Pluto TV. And yes, these are linear channels over the internet, but that is not what Ihave been referring to in my prediction. My focus is the existing EPG channels.

But you know that.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------



I’m trying to have a discussion, but nobody seems to want to discuss it. The whole idea is anathema to you guys!

I have answered all the relevant points that have been put to me but it’s as if I haven’t said anything, and the constant repetition of what I am supposed to have said when I have repeated time and again that is untrue, shows that people on here are not listening.
You seem to be having some serious difficulty with the concept of people disagreeing with you.

Paul 15-12-2022 15:37
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36141924)
1. Will traditional broadcast over satellite and terrestrial eventually be shut down in favour of exclusively IP delivery?
2. Will IP delivered content be scheduled, on demand, or a mixture of both?
1. Not in our lifetimes, in the distant future, perhaps.
2. I think a mixture of both, for a very long time yet.

The difference between "scheduled+pvr" and "on-demand" is pretty much none.

In both cases, it has an initial release time, but can be watched "on-demand".
My wife watches all her shows like this, the sky box records them, she watches them when she is ready, sometimes weeks later.

jfman 15-12-2022 16:17
Re: The future of television
 
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1197

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
What I am saying is that linear channels will become much less popular with time and that broadcasters will conclude that there is no point in continuing with them as programmes are far more accessible on demand. When all broadcasting goes to IPTV, the natural conclusion broadcasters are likely to make is that this is the appropriate time to change for the future.
My definition of a linear channel has always been clear.

A sequence of continuous programming where everyone watching that channel (or stream) is watching the exact same thing at the same time according to what the broadcaster sends out. It’s completely agnostic to the method of delivery.

OLD BOY 15-12-2022 16:34
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141945)
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1197



My definition of a linear channel has always been clear.

A sequence of continuous programming where everyone watching that channel (or stream) is watching the exact same thing at the same time according to what the broadcaster sends out. It’s completely agnostic to the method of delivery.
On that, we agree. But that was never in dispute.

Mr K 15-12-2022 16:34
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141931)
I didn’t say that. What is new is the variation of ‘themed’ FAST channels such as those listed on Pluto TV. And yes, these are linear channels over the internet, but that is not what Ihave been referring to in my prediction. My focus is the existing EPG channels.

But you know that.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------



I’m trying to have a discussion, but nobody seems to want to discuss it. The whole idea is anathema to you guys!

I have answered all the relevant points that have been put to me but it’s as if I haven’t said anything, and the constant repetition of what I am supposed to have said when I have repeated time and again that is untrue, shows that people on here are not listening.
Streaming is just too flaky OB. It's at the mercy of over subscription or being 'offline'. Mine was down for a couple of days last week. Without my beautiful aerial I'd have missed the England quarter final ( mind you that might not have been a bad thing).

At a time of national emergency we're going to be reliant on terrestrial broadcasts. All Putin has to do is hack our BB networks, something he's quite good at...
Tv isnt just for entertainment it's a public service, which needs more than one delivery medium to reach all.

OLD BOY 15-12-2022 16:43
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36141951)
Streaming is just too flaky OB. It's at the mercy of over subscription or being 'offline'. Mine was down for a couple of days last week. Without my beautiful aerial I'd have missed the England quarter final ( mind you that might not have been a bad thing).

At a time of national emergency we're going to be reliant on terrestrial broadcasts. All Putin has to do is hack our BB networks, something he's quite good at...
Tv isnt just for entertainment it's a public service, which needs more than one delivery medium to reach all.
I agree, there are indeed problems and concerns that still need to be ironed out. And yet broadcasters are ramping up their desire on get people to stream, hence the ‘digital first’ strategy.

Personally, I think these problems should be addressed before any switch off, but politicians are notoriously blind when it comes to planning for the future. Hence, they make decisions like turning off our access to fossil fuels before sufficient green energy is available to replace it.

Similarly, following any decision made to switch off the transmitters for TV broadcasting, they will not have resolved the legitimate issues you raise.

Hugh 15-12-2022 16:52
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141945)
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1197

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What I am saying is that linear channels will become much less popular with time and that broadcasters will conclude that there is no point in continuing with them as programmes are far more accessible on demand. When all broadcasting goes to IPTV, the natural conclusion broadcasters are likely to make is that this is the appropriate time to change for the future.
My definition of a linear channel has always been clear.

A sequence of continuous programming where everyone watching that channel (or stream) is watching the exact same thing at the same time according to what the broadcaster sends out. It’s completely agnostic to the method of delivery.
Lest we forget, from just over two years ago…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1615

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36060578)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36060576)
That doesn’t make sense..:confused::confused:

‘Linear TV’ is a list of scheduled programmes, where the viewer knows in advance what is on and when/where - the fact that some programmes are transmitted live and others are pre-recorded is irrelevant; it’s the schedule/channel combo that makes them linear.

How the linear channels are delivered (DTT, cable, broadband, 5G, 6.5G, direct to the optic nerve) is irrelevant, it’s the pre-agreed schedule/channel that’s relevant.

ymmv
Linear TV is live in the sense that we are watching it as it is being broadcast. That’s why it is often described as ‘live TV’.

OLD BOY 15-12-2022 17:35
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141954)
Lest we forget, from just over two years ago…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1615
The contradiction being? It’s just saying the same thing in a different way. Two cheeks of the same posterior.

Hugh 15-12-2022 17:46
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141959)
The contradiction being? It’s just saying the same thing in a different way. Two cheeks of the same posterior.
:dig::dig:

Linear TV definition

Quote:
Linear TV is a traditional system in which a viewer watches a scheduled TV program when it's broadcasted and on its original channel. The program can be recorded via DVR and watched later.
Live TV definition

Quote:
A live television or radio programme is one in which an event or performance is broadcast at exactly the same time as it happens, rather than being recorded first.
The cheeks of your aforementioned posterior appear to be spread quite widely apart…

OLD BOY 16-12-2022 08:53
Re: The future of television
 
In case you missed it, the media is describing scheduled TV as live TV.

jfman 16-12-2022 10:25
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141980)
In case you missed it, the media is describing scheduled TV as live TV.
Where?

How do they distinguish it from timeshifted using a Sky+ type device?

Hugh 16-12-2022 13:42
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36141980)
In case you missed it, the media is describing scheduled TV as live TV.
Yes, I did - can you provide a coupe of examples where this has happened, please?

The only place I can find what you describe is on the TV Licencing website - everyone else seems to use the standard definition.

Quote:
Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it's being shown on any channel, TV service or streaming service. It's not just live events like sport, news and music. It also covers soaps, series, documentaries and even movies.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ95

OLD BOY 16-12-2022 18:10
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141987)
Where?

How do they distinguish it from timeshifted using a Sky+ type device?
There are numerous examples if you look. Hugh found one. (See below).

Here is another.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...ne-only-switch

'All the same, there are strong hints that the days of the large, live TV audience, with everybody sharing a scheduled broadcast at the same time, are numbered.'

You can trawl the internet for more if you want to, but really, this is nothing to do with how TV will develop. As ever, we are talking semantics here and it is of no importance. It's just a diversion, again.

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36142013)
Yes, I did - can you provide a coupe of examples where this has happened, please?

The only place I can find what you describe is on the TV Licencing website - everyone else seems to use the standard definition.



https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ95

1andrew1 28-12-2022 13:46
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
How Netflix, Disney+ and other streaming giants could change to stop Britons hitting cancel amid cost of living crisis

Bespoke subscriptions
The answer may be to siphon off content into separate subscriptions, like a Star Wars-only Disney+ tier.

Less user privacy
Another way to offer cheaper deals is through ads.

Until now, streaming services had used our data to make recommendations and inform their content line-up, but adverts mean that - like with social media - it's more likely to end up in the hands of third parties.

Embracing NFTs
Martin Warner, chief executive of independent streaming service Flix Premiere, thinks they have a role to play in his industry, comparing them to a post-ride gift shop at a theme park.

"Whether it’s a script, a director’s cut, a set of production stills - it could be a great place to go and align with TV and movies and foster a sense of community on your platform," he told Sky News.

An end to the binge model
But whether Amazon's Rings Of Power or Disney's Marvel shows, week-to-week viewing is back in fashion - and Netflix experimented by splitting Stranger Things and its Harry and Meghan docuseries into chunks.

Return of bundles
"It may be content coupled with passes to theme parks, credits to buy films in cinemas, things like that," he said. [He being Oscar Wall, European general manager at Recurly, which works with the likes of Paramount+ and Twitch]

Another bundling option would be to include the right to password sharing, which Netflix is reportedly preparing a significant crackdown on in 2023 - potentially charging extra for the privilege.
https://news.sky.com/story/how-netfl...risis-12763477

jfman 28-12-2022 15:36
Re: The future of television
 
NFTs :rofl:

Chris 28-12-2022 17:03
Re: The future of television
 
The tulips of our age.

More interesting are the realisations that ad-supported tiers are likely to become commonplace (we were assured some years ago by a certain contributor here that this would never happen) and that dropping entire seasons of a show at once isn’t good for subscriber retention, implying a move towards quasi-scheduling, one episode per week. Disney and Amazon have embraced this; Netflix is clearly dipping its toe in the water too.

OLD BOY 28-12-2022 18:51
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36142720)
The tulips of our age.

More interesting are the realisations that ad-supported tiers are likely to become commonplace (we were assured some years ago by a certain contributor here that this would never happen) and that dropping entire seasons of a show at once isn’t good for subscriber retention, implying a move towards quasi-scheduling, one episode per week. Disney and Amazon have embraced this; Netflix is clearly dipping its toe in the water too.
I said Netflix would not support ads because at the time, the CEO was vehemently opposed to them.

I thought streamers would not include advertisements because that would deter people who wished to avoid them from subscribing. However, we did not discuss tiering at the time, which does make sense, as does a free option with ads.

Chris 28-12-2022 19:38
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142725)
I said Netflix would not support ads because at the time, the CEO was vehemently opposed to them.

I thought streamers would not include advertisements because that would deter people who wished to avoid them from subscribing. However, we did not discuss tiering at the time, which does make sense, as does a free option with ads.
Both of these we addressed at the time. I pointed out that a company strategy exists only as long as it’s expedient and rarely remains unaltered from one CEO to the next. If conditions change they may not even last that long. There are all sorts of reasons why things change. However, at the time you were only interested in rigidly defending your view that there would be no ads, no nay never.

My next prediction is that free-with-ads is only an experiment to see what the appetite is like and draw punters in. Eventually those ad-supported tiers will have a subscription rate of their own, just as Sky does today. Ad-free in the long run will be a premium service

Mr K 28-12-2022 20:53
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36142728)
Both of these we addressed at the time. I pointed out that a company strategy exists only as long as it’s expedient and rarely remains unaltered from one CEO to the next. If conditions change they may not even last that long. There are all sorts of reasons why things change. However, at the time you were only interested in rigidly defending your view that there would be no ads, no nay never.

My next prediction is that free-with-ads is only an experiment to see what the appetite is like and draw punters in. Eventually those ad-supported tiers will have a subscription rate of their own, just as Sky does today. Ad-free in the long run will be a premium service
The BBC already do it ;)
Much better value than any of these streaming services too.

1andrew1 28-12-2022 21:58
Re: The future of television
 
Bespoke subscriptions
Now from Sky does this already. I don't think there's enough Star Wars content to justify that particular example but doing it by genre is an option for a potential Warner Bros Discovery service.

Less user privacy
Makes sense to get a bit of extra cash in by selling user data.

Embracing NFTs
I agree with the idea of fostering communities and selling merchandise but that's nothing new. An NFT is just another bit of merchandise with a dubious reputation.

An end to the binge model
Obviously makes sense.

Return of bundles
The quoted examples of cinema tickets and theme parks don't seem significant to me. I can see Disney, Universal (Comcast-Sky) and Warner Bros Discovery wanting to market their theme parks/studio tours to their respective subscribers but I doubt they want to undermine theme park revenue too much or include a benefit that few would use.

OLD BOY 28-12-2022 22:59
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36142728)
Both of these we addressed at the time. I pointed out that a company strategy exists only as long as it’s expedient and rarely remains unaltered from one CEO to the next. If conditions change they may not even last that long. There are all sorts of reasons why things change. However, at the time you were only interested in rigidly defending your view that there would be no ads, no nay never.

My next prediction is that free-with-ads is only an experiment to see what the appetite is like and draw punters in. Eventually those ad-supported tiers will have a subscription rate of their own, just as Sky does today. Ad-free in the long run will be a premium service
Not much of a prediction, Chris. It’s already happening.

Chris 28-12-2022 23:35
Re: The future of television
 
I’m not aware of any streamers yet taking a sub *and* showing adverts in the middle of shows - did I miss something?

Paul 29-12-2022 00:09
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36142729)
Much better value than any of these streaming services too.
The BBC is poor value for me, only one show I watch, and thats been ruined in recent years (but hopefully getting better in 2023).

jfman 29-12-2022 00:17
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142725)
I said Netflix would not support ads because at the time, the CEO was vehemently opposed to them.

I thought streamers would not include advertisements because that would deter people who wished to avoid them from subscribing. However, we did not discuss tiering at the time, which does make sense, as does a free option with ads.
This is ironic considering you frequently accuse others of describing/clinging to the present and lacking the vision to see how the market will inevitably develop.

1andrew1 29-12-2022 01:14
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142725)
I thought streamers would not include advertisements because that would deter people who wished to avoid them from subscribing.
Surely if it makes them more money, streamers would do this in the same way that regular pay TV channels do this?

I think your opinion was formed by analysing TV broadcasting through a narrow technological lens rather than taking into account other considerations like commercial ones.

OLD BOY 29-12-2022 08:08
Re: The future of television
 
One of the big benefits of streaming that I detected was the amount of content and the lack of advertising. Consequently, it appeared disingenuous to dilute that model in the way that commercial pay-tv channels do.

However, I was not considering a possible tiered approach, and I do think it makes sense to either have a cheaper or a free service with ads as options for those who cannot afford to pay (or will not pay on principle) for their TV content.

jfman 29-12-2022 08:26
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142746)
One of the big benefits of streaming that I detected was the amount of content and the lack of advertising. Consequently, it appeared disingenuous to dilute that model in the way that commercial pay-tv channels do.

However, I was not considering a possible tiered approach, and I do think it makes sense to either have a cheaper or a free service with ads as options for those who cannot afford to pay (or will not pay on principle) for their TV content.
A bit like linear broadcasting and streaming - not a zero sum game.

Hugh 29-12-2022 10:11
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142746)
One of the big benefits of streaming that I detected was the amount of content and the lack of advertising. Consequently, it appeared disingenuous to dilute that model in the way that commercial pay-tv channels do.

However, I was not considering a possible tiered approach, and I do think it makes sense to either have a cheaper or a free service with ads as options for those who cannot afford to pay (or will not pay on principle) for their TV content.
Almost as there might be different options including a variety of delivery methods and scheduling, as one size doesn’t fit all…

1andrew1 29-12-2022 10:36
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142746)
One of the big benefits of streaming that I detected was the amount of content and the lack of advertising. Consequently, it appeared disingenuous to dilute that model in the way that commercial pay-tv channels do.
"CEO tells shareholders it's disengenuous to maximise profits by accepting advertising" was an unlikely long-term proposition.

OLD BOY 01-01-2023 10:29
Re: The future of television
 
The likely timeline towards the end of terrestrial and satellite TV is set out in this link. We seem to be on track for 2035.

Of course, there are still some unknowns which may throw a fly in the ointment, but for the moment, this is the accepted projection.

https://rxtvinfo.com/2023/timeline-o...-satellite-tv/

Hugh 01-01-2023 11:03
Re: The future of television
 
There was a word missing from the article headline…

"potential"

Quote:
Timeline of potential changes to Freeview and satellite TV
Also, from the last section

Quote:
The current preferred end date for digital terrestrial television, when multiplex licences expire.
Preferred by who?

OLD BOY 01-01-2023 12:28
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36142927)
There was a word missing from the article headline…

"potential"
Still clutching at straws, Hugh?

Happy New Year!

Hugh 01-01-2023 12:43
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142938)
Still clutching at straws, Hugh?

Happy New Year!
No, just factual accuracy and correct use of language - you should try it, you might like it… ;)

A timetable is a schedule of things that are going to happen at a certain time - that article was a mixture of things that were going to happen and of things that may happen…

Happy New Year to you and yours.

OLD BOY 01-01-2023 13:07
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36142941)
No, just factual accuracy and correct use of language - you should try it, you might like it… ;)

A timetable is a schedule of things that are going to happen at a certain time - that article was a mixture of things that were going to happen and of things that may happen…

Happy New Year to you and yours.
Thank you. Incidentally, I agree with you at last. All I’m doing is supporting my original prediction, which some are taking far too rigidly. I have acknowledged quite a number of times that the prediction is just what I think will happen, and if the facts change on the ground, such as a failure to roll out broadband as indicated by the government, or a decision not to permit the broadcast bandwidth for mobile services, then 2035 won’t be achievable. However, as things currently stand, we are on target to be IPTV only by the date I set originally about seven years ago now - by 2035.

I think the one thing people find it difficult to accept is my assertion that the channels are likely to disappear in favour of content being categorised instead. I said that because content is easier to manage for the broadcasters if it is done that way rather than scheduled. Additionally, as people get used to IPTV, most are likely to prefer watching what they want, when they want.

In case of doubt, although I have already made this clear, I’m talking about the existing EPG channels on Sky and Virgin, not the FAST channels, which will attract a smaller number of niche viewers. It is worth saying that even Pluto is prioritising ‘on demand’ viewing over scheduled viewing, which appears to indicate I was right to say that this is the option most people would choose in the future.

Paul 01-01-2023 16:05
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Sky wants to exit its satellite TV service.
Unless it wants to lose customers, it wont be doing that for a while.
For many areas, TV via the internet (Sky Stream/Glass) is still not practical.

OLD BOY 01-01-2023 18:36
Re: The future of television
 
That’s right. It is too early to ditch satellite right now, but the first steps to that goal have been made.

Hugh 01-01-2023 19:01
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142942)
Thank you. Incidentally, I agree with you at last. All I’m doing is supporting my original prediction, which some are taking far too rigidly. I have acknowledged quite a number of times that the prediction is just what I think will happen, and if the facts change on the ground, such as a failure to roll out broadband as indicated by the government, or a decision not to permit the broadcast bandwidth for mobile services, then 2035 won’t be achievable. However, as things currently stand, we are on target to be IPTV only by the date I set originally about seven years ago now - by 2035.

I think the one thing people find it difficult to accept is my assertion that the channels are likely to disappear in favour of content being categorised instead. I said that because content is easier to manage for the broadcasters if it is done that way rather than scheduled. Additionally, as people get used to IPTV, most are likely to prefer watching what they want, when they want.

In case of doubt, although I have already made this clear, I’m talking about the existing EPG channels on Sky and Virgin, not the FAST channels, which will attract a smaller number of niche viewers. It is worth saying that even Pluto is prioritising ‘on demand’ viewing over scheduled viewing, which appears to indicate I was right to say that this is the option most people would choose in the future.
And lo, it came to pass, the caveat "most" appeared upon the land, and the initial invariable "all programming will be on-demand, and scheduled programming will be cast into the pits of Hell and never be seen again" was modified to agree with what everyone else had been stating, that there would always be a place for scheduled programming and dogmatic approaches would be proven false… ;)

OLD BOY 01-01-2023 19:18
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36142963)
And lo, it came to pass, the caveat "most" appeared upon the land, and the initial invariable "all programming will be on-demand, and scheduled programming will be cast into the pits of Hell and never be seen again" was modified to agree with what everyone else had been stating, that there would always be a place for scheduled programming and dogmatic approaches would be proven false… ;)
On what basis do you believe that ‘there will always be a place for scheduled programming’ as we have it now? FAST channels excluded, of course.

While I accept that’s what you might want, I don’t think there’s much evidence within the industry that this is a real possibility.

Clearly, broadcasters could choose to continue providing scheduled TV by channel over IPTV, but why would they? Unless, of course, Ofcom required it, and as an organisation struggling to keep up with progress, that wouldn’t surprise me.

Hugh 01-01-2023 20:39
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
On what basis do you believe that ‘there will always be a place for scheduled programming’ as we have it now? FAST channels excluded, of course.
So you believe there won’t be a place for scheduled programming, except for the scheduled programming you want to exclude from the discussion?

OLD BOY 01-01-2023 21:06
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36142968)
So you believe there won’t be a place for scheduled programming, except for the scheduled programming you want to exclude from the discussion?
There will be a place for the existing non-FAST TV channels in the future, just as there will for the FAST channels, of course there will. Nobody’s going to stop it from happening. I simply believe that as on demand viewing becomes prevalent, the broadcasters will choose not to take that route.

I know you and some others who have contributed to this thread disagree, but that is their right. I’m just expressing my opinion, nothing more. I have heard you, and you have heard me. We can all make up our own minds.

Mr K 01-01-2023 21:18
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142972)
There will be a place for the existing non-FAST TV channels in the future, just as there will for the FAST channels, of course there will. Nobody’s going to stop it from happening. I simply believe that as on demand viewing becomes prevalent, the broadcasters will choose not to take that route.

I know you and some others who have contributed to this thread disagree, but that is their right. I’m just expressing my opinion, nothing more. I have heard you, and you have heard me. We can all make up our own minds.
You'd make a good Jehovah's witness OB, if they believed the Lord can only he streamed ;)

Jaymoss 01-01-2023 21:26
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36142973)
You'd make a good Jehovah's witness OB, if they believed the Lord can only he streamed ;)
We are Multi Media nowadays. We had The Photo-Drama of Creation audio visual in cinemas in 1914 and used to minister with phonographs. Jah you see is ahead of his time

Hugh 01-01-2023 21:28
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142972)
There will be a place for the existing non-FAST TV channels in the future, just as there will for the FAST channels, of course there will. Nobody’s going to stop it from happening. I simply believe that as on demand viewing becomes prevalent, the broadcasters will choose not to take that route.

I know you and some others who have contributed to this thread disagree, but that is their right. I’m just expressing my opinion, nothing more. I have heard you, and you have heard me. We can all make up our own minds.
Schrödinger’s scheduled programming channels - you believe there’s a place for scheduled programming channels in the future, and also believe that there won’t be a place for scheduled programming channels in the future (because broadcasters will choose not to provide them).

Thank you for clarifying that point… ;)

OLD BOY 01-01-2023 23:22
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36142977)
Schrödinger’s scheduled programming channels - you believe there’s a place for scheduled programming channels in the future, and also believe that there won’t be a place for scheduled programming channels in the future (because broadcasters will choose not to provide them).

Thank you for clarifying that point… ;)
I don’t really think my comment needs any explanation, Hugh. Of course the channels could appear as now but on IPTV. If they wanted to, they could. But I don’t think they would want to do that if on demand was the preference of most viewers, with audience figures for conventional viewing declining. Why would they?

1andrew1 03-01-2023 22:26
Re: The future of television
 
The decision of Sony to remain a content producer and not a streamer looks a wise one.
Quote:
Decade-long spending boom on original TV content expected to slow

Lossmaking streaming platforms and traditional channels face pivotal year in 2023, say analysts

Analysts predict 2023 will be a pivotal year for the video media industry, which has been hammered by the deteriorating economy and an expensive transition from traditional television to streaming, where most platform’s soaring content costs have yet to be matched by revenue gains...

Meanwhile, big legacy media companies such as Disney, Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery are facing another year of heavy streaming losses, with Morgan Stanley estimating content costs per subscriber will be almost double that of Netflix while revenue per member will be lower.

Excluding Netflix, Morgan Stanley estimates streaming services suffered operating losses of around $10bn in 2022. Losses are expected to peak for some services in what the analysts called a “tipping point year” where it will be clear costs are reaching “unsustainable levels”.

“Streamers are raising prices and cutting costs,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note to clients. “If these moves do not deliver meaningful streaming profits, we see two options (not mutually exclusive): give up and/or consolidate.”
https://www.ft.com/content/d9a7cded-...1-44bf6516d476

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142981)
I don’t really think my comment needs any explanation, Hugh. Of course the channels could appear as now but on IPTV. If they wanted to, they could. But I don’t think they would want to do that if on demand was the preference of most viewers, with audience figures for conventional viewing declining. Why would they?
Because it brings in additional viewers at a low cost. Declining audiences doesn't mean small audiences. And some content is better suited to linear channels.

Paul 03-01-2023 23:50
Re: The future of television
 
Streamers are learning that consumers are fed up of having to shell out 4+ subscriptions just to watch their programs.

denphone 04-01-2023 17:56
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36143077)
Streamers are learning that consumers are fed up of having to shell out 4+ subscriptions just to watch their programs.
+1

Chris 04-01-2023 18:40
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142981)
I don’t really think my comment needs any explanation, Hugh. Of course the channels could appear as now but on IPTV. If they wanted to, they could. But I don’t think they would want to do that if on demand was the preference of most viewers, with audience figures for conventional viewing declining. Why would they?
Because it is trivially inexpensive to set up a selection of content you already own, to first drop according to a pre-advertised schedule.

Just think beyond your silo for half a second and surely even you can see this. If the BBC owns half a dozen shows which it is going to host on demand on the iPlayer, the additional cost of creating an additional menu item which is a parallel live stream, in which those shows feature one after the other of a weekday evening, with linked continuity announcements and advertisements, is tiny. Dropping content in such a way allows busy TV viewers to choose one menu item - the ‘broadcast stream’ or whatever they choose to brand it - and just leave it running. No further intervention required from teatime all the way to the 10 o clock news or beyond. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually do this and are fine with it. It works for them, whether you can comprehend it or not.

If customers want it, the BBC can do it, and the cost of doing it is tiny, why would they *not* want to do it, absent the fundamentalist zeal that underpins your own views on this subject?

Pierre 05-01-2023 14:08
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36143077)
Streamers are learning that consumers are fed up of having to shell out 4+ subscriptions just to watch their programs.
indeed I currently have the following:

Sky - incorporating Discovery+ & Paramount +

Prime

Disney

Apple (which I took out and didn't get around to cancelling, but I've watched some decent stuff on there)

Although I have a Smart TV in every room I access all my content through my SkyQ box, as not all apps are available on all Smart TVs.

1andrew1 06-01-2023 10:48
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36143185)
indeed I currently have the following:

Sky - incorporating Discovery+ & Paramount +

Prime

Disney

Apple (which I took out and didn't get around to cancelling, but I've watched some decent stuff on there)

Although I have a Smart TV in every room I access all my content through my SkyQ box, as not all apps are available on all Smart TVs.
I think Paramount + is a bit optimistic as a stand-alone offering. I can see them being a bolt-on to Now TV in the future. Ending the Smithsonian channel looks like a bit of an own goal.

The interesting development will be what happens to Discovery, HBO, Eurosport and BT Sport.

I'm sure Netflix, Apple, Disney + and Amazon will all remain as they are.

jfman 08-01-2023 02:12
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36143252)
I think Paramount + is a bit optimistic as a stand-alone offering. I can see them being a bolt-on to Now TV in the future. Ending the Smithsonian channel looks like a bit of an own goal.

The interesting development will be what happens to Discovery, HBO, Eurosport and BT Sport.

I'm sure Netflix, Apple, Disney + and Amazon will all remain as they are.
I don’t think Paramount are the only one in that boat. The irony if they bundle/consolidate offerings is it loses what they wanted to achieve - more of their own revenue independent of platforms.

Maggy 08-01-2023 09:46
Re: The future of television
 
I suspect that whatever system I go for it will be the same old "there's nothing on to watch".

Dude111 08-01-2023 20:59
Yes sadly thats why I stopped watching.... Almost nothing but bloody disgusting trash on now!

Mr K 08-01-2023 21:18
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 (Post 36143384)
Yes sadly thats why I stopped watching.... Almost nothing but bloody disgusting trash on now!
Try BBC4 Dude.

Hugh 09-01-2023 09:59
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36143387)
Try BBC4 Dude.
He’d have to change his VPN setting…

Chris 09-01-2023 10:30
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36143401)
He’d have to change his VPN setting…
I doubt he has one, unless he’s found a standalone unit that uses valves.

Dude111 10-01-2023 13:33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
He’d have to change his VPN setting…
Heh yea unless they dont mind someone from USA watching.....

jfman 13-01-2023 01:47
Re: The future of television
 
“Deep pockets” DAZN have burned through another $2bn in losses in their latest financials.

https://www.cityam.com/dazn-sports-b...evenue-rising/

For every dollar they earn they are spending two.

1andrew1 13-01-2023 12:30
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36143622)
“Deep pockets” DAZN have burned through another $2bn in losses in their latest financials.

https://www.cityam.com/dazn-sports-b...evenue-rising/

For every dollar they earn they are spending two.
Whilst it is hard to make money in sports TV unless you are using it as a loss-leader to sell something else (eg BT Sport was loss-making) these losses are on another scale!

Three red flags in particular:
- Postponement of IPO.
- Having to still pay compenation for poor user experience in Italy.
- The comments from the new Chief Executive
Quote:
“It’s clearly not great to lose $1.3bn. But on the other hand, it’s a journey,” DAZN Group chief executive Shay Segev told SportBusiness. “This is probably one of the necessary milestones on this journey. “I arrived after billions had already been invested in DAZN, and there is already an established infrastructure that will allow the business to go to its next phase. This money has gone toward a good purpose: to build the platform we currently have.”

OLD BOY 30-05-2023 09:06
Re: The future of television
 
Sky looks to make savings from the move to IPTV.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2023...ds-of-uk-jobs/

jfman 30-05-2023 09:20
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36152975)
Sky looks to make savings from the move to IPTV.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2023...ds-of-uk-jobs/
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...rstsource.html

More detail, and less spin here.

Outsourcing of jobs. Another victory for failed government macroeconomic policies.

1andrew1 30-05-2023 10:40
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36152981)
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...rstsource.html

More detail, and less spin here.

Outsourcing of jobs. Another victory for failed government macroeconomic policies.
So offshoring of jobs to India and Bulgaria. Sounds like Comcast is stamping its mark on Sky.

A shame for those staff working in Belfast, Derby and Derry. Those parts of the UK are some of our less economically less successful areas.

OLD BOY 24-06-2023 19:51
Re: The future of television
 
https://rxtvinfo.com/2023/sky-satell...his-fortnight/

’As broadcasters turn to streaming, Sky satellite viewers will lose four more channels, with classic movie channel TCM also closing down on other platforms’.

The beginning of the end for TV channels? Surely not?

Not at least according to the prevailing opinion on the Cable Forum.

And yet, future sh** happens!

Hugh 24-06-2023 20:21
Re: The future of television
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/compar...%20WION%20News.

Quote:
Freeview’s channel launches in 2023 so far are:

Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Arabic, That’s 60s, That’s 70s, That’s 60s MCR, That’s 70s MCR, TV Warehouse+1, WION News.
The beginning of the end for TV channels? Surely not?

Not at least according to the real world…

And yet, present Johnson happens!

jfman 24-06-2023 20:33
Re: The future of television
 
Words that don’t feature in the article: 2035.

Paul 24-06-2023 22:28
Re: The future of television
 
Thats really more of a number than a word ;)

OLD BOY 25-06-2023 17:15
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36154616)
Thats really more of a number than a word ;)
Ofcom is only issuing licences to broadcast until 2034. Join the dots.

jfman 25-06-2023 17:21
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36154635)
Ofcom is only issuing licences to broadcast until 2034. Join the dots.
All those precious licenses have expired and got renewed. A time limit on a licence isn’t indicative of anything other than in your dreams OB.

Chris 25-06-2023 17:53
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36154635)
Ofcom is only issuing licences to broadcast until 2034. Join the dots.
Would love to see a credible source for this.

OLD BOY 25-06-2023 22:56
Re: The future of television
 
You wouldn’t believe it if I showed you.

Chris 25-06-2023 23:26
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36154646)
You wouldn’t believe it if I showed you.
Correct. Because I’ve already got the links lined up that show you’ve misunderstood whatever it is you’ve been reading. But I guess we can just cut out the middleman and agree that nobody with any sense believes any of your pound shop predictions about TV.

Hugh 26-06-2023 09:27
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36154646)
You wouldn’t believe it if I showed you.
Let me guess - it goes to another school… ;)

Hugh 26-06-2023 09:40
Re: The future of television
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36154647)
Correct. Because I’ve already got the links lined up that show you’ve misunderstood whatever it is you’ve been reading. But I guess we can just cut out the middleman and agree that nobody with any sense believes any of your pound shop predictions about TV.
Here’s one, just in case, from last year… ;)

https://www.arqiva.com/credit-Invest...esentation.pdf (page 10)

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1687768782

1andrew1 26-06-2023 09:53
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36154646)
You wouldn’t believe it if I showed you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36154652)
I think you have your work cut out to challenge Hugh's Arqiva document!

jfman 26-06-2023 10:56
Re: The future of television
 
When DCMS consulted ironically only two of fifteen respondents were desperate to close DTT.

BT - who obviously envisage television as a way to forcing people to pay for broadband subscriptions.

Sky - who obviously see it as a rival platform to whatever Sky do over whatever medium.

There was no real appetite anywhere else. 2034 - far from being a magic tipping point where we will all have free full fibre broadband regardless of rurality - chosen to align the multiplex licences with the Channel 3 and 5 licences.

RichardCoulter 26-06-2023 12:57
Re: The future of television
 
My understanding of the situation was rhat they would be licensing DTT beyond 2035, but that they reserve the right to cancel the licenses at any point from 2035 onwards. Is that not the case :confused:

1andrew1 26-06-2023 13:26
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36154659)
My understanding of the situation was rhat they would be licensing DTT beyond 2035, but that they reserve the right to cancel the licenses at any point from 2035 onwards. Is that not the case :confused:
My understanding of jfman's post is that the only reason that 2034 was chosen is that it aligns renewals with those of Channel 3 (ITV/STV) and Channel 5.

No reason to suggest licences won't be renewed because DTT will end the next year which is what old Boy has conjectured. It's just commercial logic to have an end date which can then be renewed for another period of time.

Chris 26-06-2023 13:39
Re: The future of television
 
A further aspect of this licence streamlining process is Ofcom’s proposal to automatically extend licences for the 34 hyper-local TV channels currently serving cities across the UK. At present these licences will expire in 2025. Ofcom recognises they may need more time to become commercially viable and so … guess what … is proposing a simplified renewal process, that gives them more time to succeed, with a new licence lasting until 2034.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...air-until-2034

*Not* because that’s when DTT is being shut; the government consultation outlined specific reasons for the process around giving channels time to improve their commercial viability, part of which is certainty that the platform will continue to exist. This is in line with the Broadcasting White Paper issued last year which proposed consolidating various broadcast licence renewals on 2034 because that is sufficiently far into the future to signal that investors can have long-term confidence in DTT, not because that’s when they plan to close it.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ssible__1_.pdf

Especially page 38.

RichardCoulter 26-06-2023 18:09
Re: The future of television
 
Freeview could remain via IPTV or 5G even if it's decided to sell off the current frequencies for mobile use.

I suspect that it would be commercial viability that would cause DTT to end more than anything technological.

Maybe they would keep one mux going for PSB channels for those that cannot or don't want to access them in any other way. If they complained about the reduction in channels I bet they'd be told that they have the channels, plus a few more, that they had befote DSO!

Chris 26-06-2023 18:44
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36154670)
Freeview could remain via IPTV or 5G even if it's decided to sell off the current frequencies for mobile use.

I suspect that it would be commercial viability that would cause DTT to end more than anything technological.

Maybe they would keep one mux going for PSB channels for those that cannot or don't want to access them in any other way. If they complained about the reduction in channels I bet they'd be told that they have the channels, plus a few more, that they had befote DSO!
In many ways the delivery mechanism is a secondary question, in terms of this discussion at least. Old Boy’s contention (most of the time at least) has been that as soon as content providers can stop scheduling broadcasts and switch exclusively to Netflix-style on demand systems, they will do so, because it’s (allegedly) more convenient for everyone.

At present the public service broadcasters aren’t allowed to go on-demand only, but there are only around a dozen channels that fall under that category. All of the rest are on broadcast channels because they *want* to be there, and Ofcom’s extension and streamlining of the licensing for those channels, taking them out to 2034 with minimal fuss, is designed to make it as easy as possible for them to be there.

If in future it is deemed a better use of spectrum to broadcast TV via IP or 5G, (both of which are technically feasible though presently have serious limitations as to their reach and universal affordability) then Freeview can go from its present DTT to one or more alternative mechanisms. But the idea that content providers want to ditch their programming schedules just as soon as they can is for the birds. As indeed is the idea that Ofcom or the government wants them to do so.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05.
Page 7 of 13 « First 3456 7 891011 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum