Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

:cleader::hyper::beer:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Don't get too tipsy there old boy as you might not wake up in the morning.;):D:nono:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Cheers PB, nice bit of advertising for the ad company that paid for the study, highlighting future plans for the advertising industry. I am sure they will get a few customers knocking on their about the plans highlighted in the statement. ;)

(This is not aimed directly at you, more a generic statement) One of the biggest issues that will still happen it if TV goes VOD is the cost with streaming though, in my eyes. If the VOD providers get no money from ad's, where do they get it from?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

They will get it from ads. VOD is an advertiser's dream. You know exactly who is watching and their interests, so can target advertising specifically to them. In theory you could even personalise the ads.

At the moment the amount of VOD advertising is limited because ad-insertion is technically difficult to do, but there's a big incentive to overcome those difficulties.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sky already does ads on its VOD and its content partners do , when watching Discovery catch up you are presented with several advertisements during the shows.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree that there is a certain amount of 'repeated' material on Netflix (the same as you get on broadcast channels really) but I can only say that there is so much on there that I have not yet seen, it is like a treasure trove for me. The shows I have picked out I am slowly plodding through, but there is so much yet to see, and so much being added, I will never be able to get through it, particularly with the shows I've recorded and those I can watch via Amazon and Now TV as well. I can assure you I'm watching only pretty good quality stuff, I cannot abide some of those tame run of the mill American dramas that fail to tax the grey matter.

I have not 'changed my mind frequently' Harry. I have merely answered the 'what if' questions you have been posting. My central premise (again) is that as viewing habits change over the next couple of decades, more people will be streaming rather than watching scheduled TV and it will ultimately become uneconomic to continue to run conventional commercial channels. That is all I am saying, and I don't need to be able to answer all questions posted on here with chapter and verse. However, I think that most of them I have answered (although it is difficult to break down Chris's arguments that the problems he has identified will never be solved!).

Why do you expect me to persuade you as to how streaming services are to work? I cannot predict accurately market developments over that time! However, what is happening in the US is one indicator of how things are starting to move. This link might be of interest to you.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...alculator.html

I think you misunderstand my views on this, as you have referred to 'cord cutting'. I think it is perfectly possible that Sky, Virgin Media, BT and other providers will offer packages of streaming services. I don't think I have ever mentioned cord cutting.

I have no idea what the 'worldwide costs' would be Harry. In any case this is irrelevant. The point I was making is that it costs less per customer to buy the rights if you control a bigger network than that of a smaller network. So it stands to reason that the price per customer for a national operation will be much more than for a worldwide operation. So a worldwide company will be in a better position to pay out for rights to shows, games, etc than the likes of Sky (unless they expanded in the same way).

I don't understand your train of thought on Netflix and others having cheaper packages. The way I see it, if we stick with Netflix as an example, the existing package with original material could be on offer as the cheaper option (the price will probably have to be about £11 per month to be viable), but there would be a more expensive option that would include a lot more premium material.

I respect your view that linear TV services will still be running in 20 years. Maybe they will, but I don't know how they will be able to run their channels at a loss and I cannot think how they can come up with anything to draw people away from the freedom they gain through subscribing to streaming services. Only if those streaming services flood their programmes with commercials will there be less incentive to use them, but even then, you can watch the programmes you want to see at your convenience.

I remain of the view that a decent selection of subscribed streaming services will be available in the years to come, as well as PPV and 'free unskippable ads' services. In short, there will be something for everybody.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

A lot of the material is low grade, repeated stuff. Some of it is good, I don't deny that, but once you discount the amount of rubbish on these channels, this is not good value at all.

In my view, there is no comparison to Netflix.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And yet you still have a traditional pay package.

Please enlighten us , give us a comprehensive list of the quality shows on Netflix.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Why should I not have a traditional pay package?

That's part of the offer available now, and I want to have access to as much as I can get. However, I would be wrong not to confess that I have been considering my options as the number of watchable shows on the non premier Sky TV channels has declined in recent times.

If you want to view Netflix content, you will find it on their web site.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So you can't tell me the high quality shows you've really enjoyed ? I'm not being critical of Netflix as you know I subscribe I'm just interested to understand what you consider high grade.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I've got a lot more lined up in my watch list than I'll ever watch, but the ones I have watched so far include House of Cards (US version with Kevin Spacey), Breaking Bad, Bloodline, Orange is the New Black (my wife enjoys that more than I do), Damages and Lily hammer.

My wishlist includes Better Call Saul, Narco, Sense 8, Marco Polo, The Bridge, The 4400, Continuum, Jessica Jones and House, to name but a few. But they keep adding stuff and I can't keep up with it all!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

1st paragraph. So you because you missed the first run of shows, that makes Netflix the best option?!?. I have seen plenty of the shows they have on there (and Amazon too) so whilst it is still good value, it does not have appeal to me as it does to you. You seem to be unable to grasp this. Define "good quality stuff" though, I think GOT is utter tripe and the 1st series of True Detective is one of the best shows ever made, people at work think True Detective was rubbish but love GOT.

You have changed your mind. You have been challenged since since you stated your first premise (which included all shows being on demand for people to watch at anytime they want) and how your thoughts will become reality. You have been unable to answer sensible questions and points by sticking to your original points. The only you answers you have been able to answer sensible questions with, is to change your thoughts. When you are then challenged, your thoughts then change. You also said there will be no adverts and have now changed your mind and acknowledge ad's will have to be used (albeit as a tiered level of payments.) I still disagree and think ad's will have to come to streaming services, at any price point.

What has been the point of this thread if you have not been trying to persuade people how your thoughts will become reality?

And how is thread not about cord cutting? It was only last week you mentioned about packaged deals. The link you have posted is about cord cutting.:confused:

If you don't want to do the maths, then that's a shame. Just some basic figures will do

I now see your point on Netflix, and do you seriously think people will be happy pay £11 (how do you get to that figure?) just for the non-premium original series? Where is the value in that? How are they going to market that?!? "Can't afford the good stuff? Well here is a load of average junk for £11 a month"

Okay, I ask again what freedom will people get from streaming? Do you think companies will let people just drift in and out as they wish? Please answer again, as we have been here before.

I agree there will be a selection of streaming services available in the future, it will just be alongside linear TV.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That's actually the same view I have.. I think the Linear channels are going to be around for at least a few more decades.

My reasoning? Simple. There are large sections of the population all over the world that do not have good enough internet access for streaming to be a realistic proportion and without massive investment in infrastructure (which will take years, if it happens), they will not have adequate internet access for a long time. Even with adequate investment, it's going to take a long time. In the meantime, these people mostly have access to broadcast linear TV, so will be a potentially huge market for advertisers.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

My argument is based on the simple premise of a shift of linear TV viewers to a streaming preference and the impact of this on the broadcast TV channels. Why is this so difficult to understand, when ITV came so close to collapse when advertising started to decline a few years ago?

You are taking what I have said in this thread out of context on many occasions. This time, you are saying that I have changed my mind about advertisements on streaming services - no I haven't! I said from the start that Netflix have confirmed that they will not take advertising on their service. You said they would have no choice, but this is ridiculous! The whole point of streaming services is that they provide a way of watching what you want, when you want, free of advertisements. My 'conceding' that adverts might appear on Netflix in the future was simply in answer to your persistent view that ads would indeed appear on Netflix. My view is this will only happen if they decided to attract an even bigger audience via a completely different option that included ads, such as happens on the ITV Hub, All4, etc. That doesn't mean I agree that ads will appear on Netflix. I simply suggest that this might be a way of getting even more money for the company, but you need to understand that this does not form part of their business plan.

You say I keep changing my mind, but you are wrong. Sometimes someone may come up with an argument which deserves taking seriously and I don't discount those arguments, but my view of things remains the same. You may have forgotten that in my post 29 in January 2015, I clearly stated:

'Linear TV may survive, I agree, but I think new ways of watching TV will become prevalent over time and the way we view now will seem pretty primitive.

The main issue will be how these programmes are funded in the future.

To be clear, the discussion I am inviting is how the funding issue is going to work on the commercial broadcast channels when they face increasing competition from streaming services. That is the issue, but you have studiously avoided confronting this problem. Maybe there is an answer, but if so I don't know what it is. Only the BBC would not have that particular problem, but ultimately with more people watching their programmes via alternative means, they will be faced with a decision about whether they can justify the higher costs of broadcasting in this way.

Picking up on various points you have made this time around, I have not mentioned Netflix being a 'best option'. I am merely saying that they have many programmes on there that appeal to me and it will take me an age to get through them, while additional original series keep being added. I accept that maybe Netflix is not your cup of tea, but there will be other streaming services popping up that may appeal more to you over time.

This thread is not about cord cutting, but that is not to say that cord cutting may not result. I have said before that if Virgin Media and Sky embrace the change that is coming, they could offer bundles of streaming services in the same way as they currently offer bundles of channels. So that isn't cord cutting, is it? The link I gave you contained a list of steaming services available in the US that I thought would be useful in helping you to understand how streaming services would start to develop in earnest over here. You did ask, after all! ;)

I have explained why your issue about 'the maths' is irrelevant. Everyone knows that when you purchase in bulk, you get it cheaper. I'm not going to compile a spreadsheet for you to prove this, Harry, I'm sorry, I have a life!

My figure of £11 for Netflix I think is pretty accurate and it is based on what I think the existing choices on Netflix will cost us in a few short years. The price has already increased to £8.99 for new subscribers, so we are already half way there. The more basic package I was talking about would be cheaper than this (or as you seem to think, even free with ads, although I stress this is not what I think will happen).

As for people drifting in and out of streaming services as they wish, yes, I think most of the streaming providers will allow this. Now TV does it now; in fact your subscription isn't even renewed at the end of the period unless you actively renew it. Only Amazon has so far insisted on annual subscriptions and I see no moves anywhere to follow their example.

I hope this answers your questions, Harry, but please - I am not changing my mind at all! I could just sit here and say that all your assumptions are wrong, but I try and engage in a sensible debate. This thread is all about what might happen when broadcast TV audiences decline. I'm not trying to brainwash you at all. I am more interested in how the broadcasters will deal with it.

There have been remarkably few responses to that central question.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree, Den, but you have to scour the TV schedules over many different channels to find them. Then when you do find them, you find that they clash with the other dramas you have picked out so you end up having to record them.

I am happy to just create my own viewing lists on the various streaming services and then let the various providers keep track of where I am in the series (at what point in the series I left off). Then I watch my chosen viewing whenever I want. No keeping track of episodes, no full hard drives, no missed programmes.

Far easier and much less frustrating. Why the resistance?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

My problems in our household is sometimes there are 4 or 5 things all on at the same time and thus we have to juggle it all around and that's why it would be nice to have more then 3 tuners and hopefully that will be rectified later this year.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

...or wouldn't it be good if Virgin Media's TiVo had these functions?

https://www.tivo.com/onepass

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, that's the way to go with the current state of the art. It will be interesting to see how advanced the new Tivos from Virgin will be when they are launched later this year.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I was more thinking of those functions on the existing hardware.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The link you posted was all about the 'One Pass', which is what I was referring to.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

One Pass could technically be added to the current Tivo, as it was added to the US Tivo Premier

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It would be a good addition, and completely in line with what the Tivo was designed for.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thank you for ignoring how Netflix will market their cheap tier.

Your answers are still unsatisfactory. I don't recall making many, if any assumptions. My posts have challenged a number of your assumptions, and you have come back with many, many different assumptions.

I am really fed up with your constant denial that you have changed your mind. This whole thread is testament to the fact you have.

I won't discuss Netflix with you anymore, simply because you think they won't ever take ad's. Even though you admit you think they could well accept ad's for cheaper subscription tiers in future so they can boost their business in future - via the use of ad's - that would be a shrewd move by Netflix though.

Please stop saying I don't like Netflix, I have said numerous occasions I do.
You simply don't seem to grasp Netflix does not have as strong a pull towards me as it does you, even though it is a good service as it stands.

Equally, I never said Netflix will be free with ad's. I have never said they will introduce different tiers, that is all your suggestion.

No amount of streaming services will appear to me, because it will always be cheaper for me to use linear TV. I will reuse to pay companies more than I do now for the option to watch what ever shows I want to watch on sky.

I don't ever recall asking for a spreadsheet. I knocked up some rudimentary numbers in one paragraph a few posts ago, based on Netflix doubling their viewership, for the cost of one show. Please give me a single paragraph with rudimentary numbers on how much you think one show and one film will cost to pay for, considering the cost involved for making the show and film. If you want to disregard my comments, prove me wrong.

With regards your "new" discussion (changed from your original point), people will still be watching linear tv in 20 years. The revenue will still come from ad money and content owners charging Netflix/Amazon higher cost's for back seasons of shows, if viewership declines. That's my answer. Feel free to discuss that. If Netflix etc becomes too big a threat, they could, effectively, be destroyed as a threat very quickly.

I invite you to discuss how streaming services will destroy linear TV, when the costs involved to customers will be higher than they are now. Also, how will it structured? Will it be bundled by Sky, and people can leave when they want? If so, where does the the guaranteed income come from? You may recall we have had this discussion before, but you choose to ignore my previous comments and want to discuss this again.

Lets leave the other stuff we have chatted about above alone, we are going in circles. Let's just concentrate on the last three paragraphs and tell me the monthly costs involved of streaming services, and how they will survive with out ad's and ow subscriptions.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, you do make me laugh, Harry! You pull every word I say apart in the most pedantic fashion and expect me to justify absolutely everything I say, and yet you make these sweeping statements such as the 'fact' that Netflix will have to take commercials, completely ignoring the fact that they've said they will not. It is difficult to have a sensible conversation when one side feels they can say whatever they like and ignore the contrary evidence and expects the other party to detail their views to the umpteenth amount of detail.

I agree, let's leave the Netflix issue aside, people can make their own judgement about whether to believe you or believe the company's stated position.

Concentrating on your last 3 paragraphs as you suggest, you seem to think I've 'changed ' my original point. I don't know what you mean by that because I have been consistent in my views on this throughout, although of course arguments and discussions can develop any theme.

I note that you seem to be saying that if linear TV broadcasters find their audience share declining, they will simply charge more for selling their original content to the streaming services. Well, that's tough luck for the likes of Gold, Dave, Syfy, W, Alibi and countless others who produce precious little if any of their own material. Even ITV has channels, such as ITV 2,3, and 4 that survive on repeats and imported material. Clearly, your (unreported) figures do not add up. Many, many linear channels would have to close if that was the only way to make up the increasing shortfall in revenue that I suggest will start to be noticeable in the medium term. If that's the best solution you have, I rest my case.

You may or may not be right about costs of streaming services in the future, but even if you are right and people will get less for their buck, this will not stop it from happening for the reasons I have stated many times. The only way linear channels can possibly survive in the long term is if they come up with something completely new which stops them haemorraging viewers. I cannot think what this would be, and therefore my conclusion is that they will die out eventually, with the smaller ones dying out first.

Once again, you ask me how the cost of streaming services will be structured, how they will be packaged, etc. How am I supposed to answer that? It's up to the satellite and cable providers to work that out and negotiate the best deals. Don't forget that wholesale deals guarantee income, which is a valuable mechanism that suits both parties, enabling the satellite/cable company to make a profit. Why do you see streaming services as so different from channels? The same principles apply, it's just that there will be rather less of them.

I have already sent you a link on the streaming services available in the US and what the various options would cost, but you chose to ignore this and complain that the article was about cord cutting! Simply look at those charges and use the dollars to pounds calculator and that will give you a pretty good idea. However, don't forget that there will be many additional options available including pay per view sites and those forcing ads down your throat at no extra cost.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Ha, glad I can make you laugh OB;). I do pull a lot of your stuff apart, but that is because, in my eyes, it can be pulled apart. You have been very open with all of your thoughts, thankfully, as they encourage debate (this thread is good to pass the time when the missus is not about) but ultimately, you have never been able to back up your statements and thoughts when questioned.

Not sure I make sweeping statements, yes I think all streaming services will take ad money eventually, I have never claimed it as fact. Not sure how that is a sweeping statement though, even if it is one, it is only a single statement. I have never denied that I can back up my statement on ad's and Netflix, even when you have asked. In my eyes, it is the only way it can stay financially viable in 20 years time. History also tells us that pay TV stations need ads, so I don't see why streaming services won't need them in the future. Ultimately, I don't care if people believe me or not, it's what I think.

I have never asked for the umpteenth detail. You have replied with detail to many of my responses to your posts, but you have not been able to explain to me rudimentary costs of worldwide exclusives, how the streaming services will work and rudimentary figures for how much they will cost. I have given many rudimentary costs in the past, but for some reason you choose not to give me rudimentary costs back, I can only think it is because you know the figures won't stack up. You have told me three different ways on how you think streaming services could work, and have changed your thoughts when I have challenged you. Unfortunately I still disagree that people will be able to flit in and out of a bundled streaming service form Sky VM, etc, it is not financially viable. If it is a viable option, why don't sky, vm operate like that now?

So, you have given me lots of detail, but have failed to convince me on any costs and how it will work. If I am after the "umpteenth detail", it is because you have made statements that do not stand up to basic scrutiny.

With regards your link (where have I complained it is about cord cutting? cord cutting came up a few posts ago and you say this thread is not about cord cutting. I still say it is, or at least was, until you changed your mind a couple of weeks ago and said Sky bundling services is the best option), I responded some time ago to another link and the totals of about 5 or 6 of the best streaming services would cost about £50.

The cost's on your link are scarier. I would ask how much you think Sky would charge to sell those services as a bundle, but I know you won't give an answer.

Where have I said I streaming services are different to channels? They offer a great option for people, as do wholesale deals. I am happy streaming services are available, but they will not kill off linear tv as you think.

I doubt the UKTV channels will suffer too much, they are part owned by the BBC and I can't see the BBC or Scripps letting their channels die too quickly, when they could pass any theoretical extra costs to Netflix for the rights old series. A few of their channels air on freeview too, and in the case of UKTV channels only, they could always release more channels on freeview to gain extra ad revenue, if the Sky ad revenue drops. Freeview, will of course, continue to operate for many years to come. I have no doubt some channels on sky will struggle, but there is no way linear tv will die in 20 years. That is the I solution I will give, and unlike you, I will stick to it. Feel free to pull it apart even more if you wish, but it is not going to matter as linear tv will not be dead in 20 years.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I've come to the conclusion, Harry, that no-one is actually going to convince you that viewer habits are changing and that there will come the day when the linear broadcast model ceases to be viable. Your posts do not address this fact but instead seem to be requiring me to state in infinite detail how the streaming services will be funded, what streaming services there will be, whether subscriptions will be for a month or a year at a time, etc. No-one can 'know' the answers to these questions because different events lead to different initiatives by providers and so to predict future events with the degree of precision you require is not possible. Then additionally you get entrepreneurs from out of nowhere who come up with game changing ideas.

Linear broadcast channels have served us well but new digital technologies will ultimately take over completely. It's not a question of if, but when. Despite your comments about 'changing my mind' my views on this have been consistent.

Chris is adamant that there are too many obstacles to the changes I have suggested on here, despite the fact that the experts are working to resolve problems such as the energy limitations that he has described. He does not believe that in 20 years' time the rest of the country will have access to high speed broadband despite this being the Government's objective in less than half that time.

I have entertained the questions you have put to me, but that does not necessarily mean that I agree with the scenarios you have put forward. You have resolutely refused to accept that Netflix will not take commercials, despite the company's CEO saying that they will not do this, you refuse to accept that streaming companies will let their viewers flit in and out of their offerings despite the fact that Now TV do this already, and so on.

So whatever I say will never convince you, old chap! However, in the near future, even you will see the way this is going, and I expect there will be plenty of hat eating going on in your household!

Let's use this thread to post links and information about how the way we watch TV may or may not change in the future. We can all then form our own views about the way this is all going.

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

Here is an exciting development relating to a new streaming service.

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201603254...#axzz43w7bErFS

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I wouldn't place too much stock in the Government's promises of "high speed" broadband everywhere in the country in 10 years.. The government doesn't have a great record when it comes to IT projects being delivered on time and on budget, and this is likely to be the largest project they've ever handled. While it isn't a government IT project as such (in that they will not be running the project or infrastructure), they are funding it, which means the likes of BT will be rubbing their hands waiting to get hold of the cash and deliver the minimum they can. Maybe I sound cynical, but I don't have much confidence in the way the government deals with contractors.

Regarding the comments of the Netflix CEO, what CEOs say can change. Yes, under certain circumstances, they can get in trouble with the authorities if what they say is later proved untrue. So, what tends to happen is that what the CEO says is vetted by the company lawyers before it is said, or if that can't happen, they issue a press release to clear up any confusion, and that press release is..

Now, on to the comment itself. Reed Hastings (Netflixs CEO) said "No advertising coming onto Netflix. Period.
Just adding relevant cool trailers for other Netflix content you are likely to love." . Sounds very definite, doesn't it? I'm fairly certain that had they left it there, that statement would have committed Netflix to never having advertising (although I am not a lawyer)..

So, they clarified.. They released a statement stating "We are not planning to test or implement advertising on the Netflix service. For some time, we've teased Netflix originals with short trailers after a member finishes watching a show. Some members in a limited test now are seeing teases before a show begins. We test hundreds of potential improvements to the service every year. Many never extend beyond that.". Note the phrase "We are not planning to test or implement advertising". It's not the same as "No advertising coming on to Netflix". It implies that they may test and may implement advertising at some point in the future, but have no plans to do so at the moment.

Note: I am not saying for sure whether they will or won't. I don't know. I personally believe they will eventually, whether they do so voluntarily or are forced. After all, they need to keep improving profits for shareholders and as competition increases, that may be difficult to do on subscriptions alone. I am saying that when the CEO said they would not, they backtracked slightly and are now hedging their bets.

Regarding Ultraflix, their service looks interesting, but bear in mind they are charging rental fees per film rather than a subscription, so it may actually work out a *lot* more expensive than other services.

Also, they proudly boast that their encoding is done with the help of "experts" at 4KStudios. I looked them up. Their website only states that they worked on several blockbuster movies. In my experience, most companies who work on any big movies (even blockbusters), tend to proudly boast what movies they've worked on. Some even include screenshots or clips showing their work. 4kstudios does neither. The only expert I can find they have hired is the guy who did the despecialized editions of Star Wars. While he did an excellent job on those, I can't find any evidence of him doing anything else in the entertainment industry (which is extremely odd).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The Government certainly don't have a good record when it comes to contractual arrangements with the private sector and I agree that it would be surprising if the BT contract went smoothly. However, it should be sorted within the next 10 years. I expect there may still be small pockets in remote areas who may not be covered, but broadband via satellite would be an option for them.

I agree that in time, Netflix could conceivably change its mind over advertising, but one can't base a whole argument about the future of streaming services on that supposition when the company itself says the opposite. A huge attraction to the Netflix model is the absence of advertisements and there would be a huge blowback from subscribers if Netflix tried to force commercials down everyone's throats. As I said to Harry, the only way I can see Netflix introducing commercials is as an alternative offer at a lower price, or free with a more limited menu. However, the current position of Netflix is that they will not seek to add commercials to their service.

There are those people who will pay more to watch Ultraflix on a PPV basis, but I am not one of them. I watch the occasional film on Virgin Movies, but that's it.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Nearly half of Americans subscribe to streaming video services

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/51812...-now-use-svod/

The trend towards streaming videos continues apace in the US, and where they go we will almost certainly follow. As more people become used to 'instant viewing' without commercials, video streaming will become the norm, putting increasing pressure on the linear broadcast TV channels.

Some 46% of Americans now subscribe to streaming video services, with millennials aged 14-25 spending more time streaming than watching live TV, according to Deloitte.

The professional services firm’s tenth ‘Digital Democracy Survey’ claims that more than half of all consumers and three-quarters of millennials watch movies and TV shows via streaming on at least once a month.

Millennials aged 26-32 who currently pay for streaming video have an average of three subscriptions and those aged 14-25 said they value their streaming video subscriptions more than pay TV subscriptions.

“The proliferation of online content shows no signs of slowing down and the consumer appetite to consume content is equally voracious,” said Deloitte vice chairman and US media and entertainment sector leader, Gerald Belson.

“The survey data indicates that consumers are more willing than ever to invest in services to watch whenever, wherever and on whatever device they choose.”

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You must be on good commission extolling the values of all these streaming services old boy.;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The latest views expressed by the CEO of Netflix Reed Hastings, which clarifies some of the budget and advertising questions that have been debated in this thread.

Interesting that he does not want a direct fight with the TV broadcasters but he fails to see that the more viewers turn to streaming services, the less they will be watching traditional channels, leading to a downward spiral in their advertising revenue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...rst-global-tv/

Over the last year, the company’s international audience has been the biggest driver of user growth – more than 35 pc of subscribers are currently non-US, and the percentage is going up. In 2015, it brought in $6.7bn in revenue, with a slim net profit of $122m – less than half of net profits in 2014.

Netflix’s big bet for the future of internet TV is pure storytelling – in 2016, it will reportedly spend $5bn on content, compared to HBO’s $2bn budget, launching 31 new and returning original series, two dozen original feature films and documentaries, stand-up comedy specials, and 30 kids' series.

(CEO Reed Hastings) seems unperturbed by critics’ concerns about Netflix’s rising costs, responding facetiously: “We have been profitable every quarter for 15 years. So the plan is the same for the last 15 years, grow a little bit every quarter.”

Upon being pressed further, he allows: “You improve the service, it gets more members, a bigger budget and we use that to get more content and do more R&D. That’s the virtuous cycle we have been on for the last 15 years. We are only 75m members still – relative to the global footprint of the internet that is small.”

Meanwhile, it beat its own expectations of international growth, adding 4m new users outside the US. If it can genuinely become the world’s preferred internet TV network, its subscription revenue will eventually subsidise its spending spree.

Hastings insists they will never rely on advertisements as a business model, and have no interest in doing live television like sports or news. So why bother arm-wrestling TV networks?

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------

I just find the subject so interesting, old chap!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thing is Den, streaming is growing; you can't get away from that fact.

Also, peoples' desire for watching whole seasons, add-free, is also growing.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

L have never disputed that it is a growing platform PB but for some to suggest that it will be the death of linear TV well that's extremely fanciable thinking in my humble opinion.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, Den, while viewers are watching streaming videos, they can't be watching broadcast TV, can they, and that is the whole argument. Once the balance tips too far towards SVOD, advertising revenue will decline, leading to cheaper programmes, widening the gap in quality and hastening the decline.

It is a shame, I know the existing balance is what some wish to retain, but the writing is on the wall, I am afraid. Maybe a solution will be found, but frankly I doubt it. I certainly can't think of one, can you, Den? Serious question.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You can't think of one my dear chap because you have those old rose tinted glasses on up there in your ivory tower again.;):D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

In fact, I haven't heard of a single idea that would reverse or even slow down the trend away from broadcast TV.

Even our conventional broadcasters are having to embrace the new way of doing things in the digital world.


http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...eaming-service

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If you lose the rose tinted spectacles for a bit, you'll see that while you are right, people don't usually watch two things at once, they can. There is also a lot of time when people don't currently watch anything that thanks to widespread 3 and 4g adoption, they can. For instance, my journey to work is between 40 minutes and one hour. As I commute via train, I don't have to worry about anything more than being at the right place at the right time, so I have two hours a day I can do what I want on my mobile. Often, this includes watching video. Often video I have stored on the device, but I do sometimes fire up Netflix and watch something. This is two hours a day when I would likely not be watching a linear channel anyway. Plus, not being able to drive, I have to get public transport when I go out socially. This can mean a good hour of time as well.

In short, people don't necessarily have to cut down their viewing of linear channels to fit in streaming.

As long as I find a programme that is interesting, I personally don't care where it comes from. Linear channel or streaming service. I've bought up practical reasons why streaming is not for everyone and while there is some effort to solve these problems, they aren't going to be solved quickly whatever the government says.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That's because your assumptions about the trend are faulty. You're assuming the increase in VOD use and decrease in broadcast use are 1/ causally related and 2/ will continue ad infinitum, or at least until one kills the other.

The history of innovations in entertainment consistently shows that newer options find their place in the mix but do not eliminate the others. Your failure to acknowledge this simple truth is the reason why your predictions are shaky to say the least.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

A parallel could be with CDs and downloads...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7cc252e-b...#axzz448aVJi5Q

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Or going back further, Vinyl.. http://www.theguardian.com/music/201...erritory-album

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Come, come now OB. No-one else has been trying to convince me, just yoiur goodself. I don't doubt more people are watching more streaming, but as I have said that will be largely down to youngsters probably not having tv's at home anymore. It has also been well documented that linear TV is in very good health at the minute. You are also right, that I don't think linear TV will be dead in 20 years. My posts will never address your "fact" (I thought it was just a premise of yours?) because, again, I don't believe linear will be dead in 20 years. I am not sure why it seems you are so desperate to agree with you?

With regards the questions I have asked of you, if you do not know the answers as to how the future will look, why have you been trying to convince me, and others, for such a long time? It seems now you have no more answers to the questions I posed on your theories, you just want to tell me it's impossible to predict how it will all work. I trust this means we won't hear anymore theories from you, and you will just continue to stick to your premise?

I have never refused to believe that companies will not let people flit in and out of the streaming services, I just don't think it will be a viable way to fund a TV channel without ad's. Every company needs guaranteed money, and if it does not come from ad's or guaranteed monthly income, where will it come from? Yes, Now TV let's people do this, but they have a substantial big brother to support them. Their big brother ties people into annual contracts and fights tooth and nail to keep customers by offering deals when out of contratc, thus contracting people again and keeping the income flooding in.

With regards netflix, I don't think Netflix will still be available at an acsessable and affordable price in 20 years, without ads. I know CEO says they won't take ad's, but I just don't see it. They too, allow people to drop out at any time, because they are still growing and can afford too. In 20 years time I have now doubt they will be nearing saturation point in terms of subscribers. When this happens, they will need to ensure they keep this income to continue to keep the service at the level it will be operating at by then. I don't now how that will happen without contracts.

Equally, you are right, you never know who might come out in the future and bring game changing ideas, perhaps, just perhaps that will work for linear TV (not that it will be needed.)

I have never denied streaming won't be popular, it is a great addition to pay TV currently, but it won't kill off linear TV in 20 years time. Too many streaming service will simply become too expensive and if that happens, people will just go back to Sky or VM. Also, Sky will do their utmost to stop the streaming services launching, like they have done with showtime. As you said previously, wholesale deals are great for everyone, so if Sky keep paying HBO a wholesale fee which is more than HBO could get from launching HBO GO, why would HBO change it? Also as it stands over here currently, they get money from Sky, plus money from sales on Amazon and dvds. I think they would lose income if they launched HBO GO here.

Also, you fail to realize a number of people can not afford any pay TV and more simply don't care for pay tv and are happy with freeview. I have asked before why these people should be denied a basic TV right, but again, you had no substantial answer for me.

Lol, you are changing the use of this thread again. Last post you wanted to use this to discuss how linear TV will survive with less viewership, now you want to use it to post links and info on how the way we watch tv in future may or may not change. What exactly do you want to talk about? Your original premise, or either of your two new thoughts?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think Blockbuster, Our Price, Virgin Megastores, cassette players, laser discs, and VHS may all disagree with you on this point.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You're missing the point.

Newspapers - cinema - radio - TV - Internet.

All of these deliver news and entertainment. All of them have had their product offering modified by later, competing innovations (news and documentaries are very rare in cinema now). However none of them has vanished. They have adapted and survived.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Virgin Megastores are alive and kicking in the Middle East - there's a huge Virgin Megastore in the Dubai Mall.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And VHS players can be bought online so they have not disappeared either.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And I hear that sales are going through the roof... :erm: maybe not ;):D

Sorry Den, couldn't resist.

---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

It certainly will be interesting to see what happens with newspapers.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6953016.html


'i' sales will be something to keep an eye on (no pun intended). Although I don't read one, I hope they survive for a very long time. But like many things, it will come down to cost and demand.

And on a non serious note, when I was young, vinyl was all there was; so these vinyl fanboys are welcome to go back to the days of LPs, which no matter how carefully you handled them, inevitably ended up with some 'clicks and pops' when you played them. Who'd have thought that music with extra 'clicks and pops' would have commanded a higher price? ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not sure if the Indy is/was one of the greatest titles in the history of media - I liked it as a newspaper, especially when it was first launched, but it's only been going for 30 years, so there's a lot of longer running high quality newspapers that, imho, are better - The Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Economist, the Rolling Stone magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal, and the FT, and that's just English Language newspapers/magazines.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Christ, we are clutching at straws now, Den! I mean, really...VHS?!!!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

We have quite a few old VHS video gems at home old boy so there.:p:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Newspapers are not a good example, Chris. The sale of printed newspapers are declining badly and won't be around in years to come. They will be available only on the Internet in time, just as broadcast channels will survive only on the Internet players before long.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There will always be newspapers my dear chap because as you might not have realised yet and that is not everybody wants to read their content online plus there are millions who also don't have any access to the online world and never will and thus buy newspapers.

A good example is my Mum as she likes to buy her daily papers everyday even though she knows she can read it all online.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Once again, Den, although many will miss these things when they go, once they become unprofitable, they will disappear.

I for one will be very sorry to see printed newspapers go, but I worked out a while ago that the writing was on the wall....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You remind me of someone who repeatedly keeps saying to the judge l am not guilty your honour but alas he finds you guilty on every count again and again and again.;):D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, the Mirror group decided to launch a new paper just a few weeks ago. Clearly they see a market still, to counter the decline of sales from the mirror. Also, Metro and "freemium" papers/mags do pretty well. "I" also survived the chop from the Independent. Papers will survive for years, simply because the Internet will force adverts on people, much like the Mirror have started doing. You can't read an article online from the Mirror without watching an ad now. I rarely look at their articles, but some Stephen Avery stuff (the chap from Making of A Murderer on Netflix - I seriously recommend adding to the top of your list) has cropped up on the Mirror, and the only way I could read it, was by watching an ad. I found the news from a different provider.

Oh, any chance you fancy explaining your comments on broadcast channels? as far as I know, internet players stream linear content and have vod.

---------- Post added at 22:59 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

Gotta agree Den, staff rooms/canteens are full of newspapers. Pubs and hotels will always have them for customers and it's much easier to read a printed paper than an online version, because a printed paper won't hamper anyone's reading due to the internet connection slowing down or dropping out. Also, it's much nicer on a weekend to share the various supplements out, and you can fall asleep reading a paper, with worrying about losing battery power on your tablet. Equally, it is much less frustrating filling in puzzles on a sheet fo paper than it is online. Ultimately, papers will just become freemium products, laden with ad's before they disappear.

Just to add another dimension to the CD, Vinyl, digital debate, books shops are still thriving even though e-readers are still prolific. I can only base this statement on the number of shops in Cambridge, Ely and St. Ives. There is a section for e-readers in book shops these days, so, in my mind books still lead the market, and e-readers compliment nicely. Much like my Kindle lays uncharged and unused currently, but it is there if I need it!!:)

---------- Post added at 23:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ----------

BIB, clearly he does see the same future you do, and he owns the blooming company. How much more indication do you need that your premise is unlikely to come true?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Newspapers are a terrific example OB, because cinema and radio began competing with them a century ago, then TV, and then Internet, and it has only been in the last 5 years that they have come under serious pressure (and the major titles are actually still doing ok).

This does not sit well with your fanciful prediction of Internet delivery of tv content causing the abolition of broadcast delivery in 10 years (or even in 20 years).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Is Netflix taking over ? Not according to BARB but what do they know.:D

http://www.barb.co.uk/tv-landscape-r...x-taking-over/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But it is to be expected at this stage. I have always said that the pressure on linear channels is not likely to become financially worrisome for a few years, although we cannot rule out an upsurge of SVOD viewing in the meantime, as the TV audience gets more used to the immediacy of on demand viewing compared with traditional TV.

---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------

Clearly, newspapers still exist in printed form, but they are under increasing pressure.

Things are more precarious for broadcast TV due to the economics of running commercial TV channels. They can only survive if they can attract sufficient viewers, so everything is down to viewer behaviour.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Growing on-demand usage in Europe.
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...ing-in-europe/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Whereas Netflix subscriber growth has fallen well short of expectations for two quarters running in the USA, leading to concerns that the market is saturated.

It really is simple folks. Netflix, Amazon ... all this stuff is subscriber telly. There is a saturation point for subscriber telly that is well short of universal. Look how hard it is for Sky and Virgin to grow their customer base.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I thought it better to answer your post paragraph by paragraph, Harry, it saves flitting backwards and forwards with these very long posts.

---------- Post added at 12:20 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

So that makes his view less valid than yours? I don't think so.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I can`t rely on on demand from virgin as they are often very slow to add recent content to their choice. This morning i looked and the following latest episodes still hadn`t been added to the list Grimm,Arrow,Sleepy Hollow and Granchester. i think someone at virgin must of fallen asleep or something!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I have the answer to that issue.

Use your TiVo as it was designed to be used - record those programs.

I have all of those programs, and more, because I recorded them.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes i do when I can but with two of us in the house and our lass liking alot of other programs theres only so much you can record!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Revenue from printed Newspapers still exceeds the revenue from the online versions by a massive amount with no signs of it changing, I expect the same is for linear TV compared to Streaming. Linear TV isn't going to be replaced in our lifetime

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Did you actually take in that The Independent is now digital only? Most young people, especially, nowadays get their news from the Internet rather than from printed newspapers, and as the younger generation get older, I cannot see them changing their habits.

The same problem looms large over broadcast channels.

If you are so sure that printed newspapers will survive the steady erosion of their readers and broadcast channels will survive the same erosion of their viewers, I am sure you will know how they are going to pull this off. If you don't, how can you be so sure that nothing will change?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The independent was only 30 years old, never had a large print circulation and was aimed at an almost non-existent audience/political outlook.

If you're looking to critique the newspaper market you would be better served looking at the major titles like the Sun, Times and Mail. But then they're all doing reasonably well, and undermine your premise somewhat.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...s-in-past-year

All are in long term decline. Some are going quite cherry than others, but they are all moving in the same direction.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And again, I make the point, it has taken a century of repeated innovation in the delivery of news and information for our major newspapers to enter "long term" decline, whereas you seem to think that our broadcast TV infrastructure is going to collapse in about a decade, in the face of a technology that does not, and has no roadmap towards, universal availability.

Your arguments simply don't stack up, which is why all you've been able to do throughout this thread is insist "something will turn up".

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Could you pick the winning numbers for Saturdays lotto for me please.....:rolleyes:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Lotto numbers are a product of random chance. Developments in the entertainment industry have a level of predictability due to precedent, economics and technology - which has been stated in this thread repeatedly. Do try to keep up. ;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And TV was going to kill cinema, and watching videos at home was going to kill cinema - never happened (some dips, yes, but cinema had a resurgence afterwards).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

For all sorts of reasons, partly because cinema offers an immersive experience you can't easily match at home, and partly because the distribution model allows studios to recoup the enormous investment required to make a blockbuster film.

This is a salutary tale for the nascent VOD industry - broadcast distribution allows easy access to a larger audience and simultaneous viewing that can, if the product is good, promote further growth in viewing figures. The Night Manager increased its reach as the series went on, for this reason. The very model of VOD delivery makes this impossible to achieve.

TV execs call it "water cooler TV" - something you talk about the next day.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So people haven't talked about Breaking Bad (Netflix)? Sorry, but that is a very weak argument.

Granted, cinemas did not close when TV arrived and they are still going strong, but the experience is completely different from watching TV. When watching programmes on a streaming services, there is very little difference from watching broadcast TV except that you can't fast forward broadcast TV (except on recordings) and you don't get constantly interrupted by advertisements.

What does broadcast TV have that makes it preferable to VOD? The broadcasters are going to have to do better if they want to attract viewers to remain with their method of programme delivery. I cannot see what solution they could possibly have that would make this a better option, to be frank.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Breaking Bad was created and broadcast by a US TV network and was renewed four times (5 seasons total) on the basis of its ratings on that network. Its reach in the UK is unclear because Netflix don't release viewer statistics, beyond basic subscriber numbers.

"Heard of" and "watched" are two quite different concepts.

As for "what does broadcast TV have" well frankly OB this is getting tiresome. I've detailed the answer to that question several times already. It has ease of access and energy and bandwidth efficient delivery, for starters. I'm not going to expand on that any further; you have ignored each previous attempt to get you to see sense.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

As far as the viewer is concerned, broadcast TV has no advantages over streaming services.

You have stated that there are issues relating to energy and bandwidth, but you seem to think that these problems cannot be resolved, despite the fact that the industry are actively working on these problems to overcome them. Ways have already been found to mitigate some of the problem and frankly it is inconceivable that the remainder will not be sorted out over the next few years. If the bulk of your argument is based on this and you are holding to it, what can I do but advise you to 'watch this space'. Mankind has had to deal with bigger problems!

In terms of the viewer experience, you cite 'ease of access'. However, as TV boxes become more user friendly, it will become just as easy to access the streaming service you want as it is to access the EPG. The time lag to get into the streaming service now (particularly appalling on the current version of Tivo) will be eradicated, so that one press of the button will get you the EPG, the Netflix menu, the BBC i-Player menu or whatever without delay, from which you choose your programme.

If you are so tired (practically comatose by all accounts;))that you cannot function sufficiently to make a choice, just press OK on the first thing that comes up! It's the main choice that is highlighted on Netflix, so the chances are you will at least be looking at something good (if you are conscious enough to follow it, of course!).

All the figures show that SVOD is attracting a bigger and bigger audience. My only question to you is, assuming that this trend continues and the energy and bandwidth issues are overcome, how long will the broadcast channels be able to survive with diminishing revenues from advertising? If they begin a fight back against the streaming services, how will this play out? What initiatives can the broadcast channels take?

Unless you have answers to those questions, and particularly if the licence fee becomes an optional subscription in about 10 years' time, then if as I strongly suspect, that the infrastructure issues are resolved, your argument that broadcast channels will survive forever is stuffed.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You see, this is why your argument is mince. It's built on a pile of assumptions, despite the evidence being to the contrary. You have invited me to assume all my arguments are untrue and then deny your case. Pardon me but as arguments go that's pretty hare-brained.

And no, the BBC won't go subscription in 10 years. It's a mass-audience broadcaster and if the licence fee is withdrawn it will revert to advertising, exactly the same as the other state owned broadcaster (Channel 4), and the other two PSB operators (ITV and Channel 5). There is no commercial reason to lock a free-to-air channel network whose business model is based on mass audience penetration behind a paywall.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The thing is, whenever I fire up Netflix (and I do often watch Netflix), despite all my attempts to set it up so it knows exactly what I like, 9 times out of ten, what Netflix suggests for me is absolute crap. I have to dig around to find something I want to watch. I live with my sister and her other half. Most evenings, they spend over an hour looking on Netflix for something to watch, and don't find anything they both want to watch.

And yes, I have spent hours on the site detailing exactly what I like and what I don't.

Anyway, none of us know what the future holds. We may all abandon the linear channels, and stream everything. I don't think that will happen quickly (and by quickly, I mean in less than a few decades) purely because too much needs to be done to get UK broadband into a state where it's feasible to stream everything), but things can change. Twenty years ago, no one was considering streaming and, TBH, if anyone were to launch a streaming service, it was likely to be branded "Blockbuster Video", and presumably offer deals with their stores (money off in store if you stream sort of thing), the best quality version of the film would have been on DVD, and we would have been sure that any better quality successor to DVD would have been massively successful. Blu Ray succeeded DVD and less than ten years after release is already effectively being replaced. Blockbuster Video were destroyed by Lovefilm and Netflix.

Who's to say that Netflix won't go the same way? Who's to say that in ten years time, someone won't come along, offer something new and revolutionary, and destroy Netflix. You might argue that Netflix is too big for that to happen, after all they are probably Hollywood's largest investor, spending billions of dollars. In the 90s, Blockbuster spent billions of dollars a year investing in new films, and everyone thought they were to large to fail.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

If the BBC goes subscription AND advertising, this will only hasten the demise of linear TV! You assume that subscription BBC will not happen even though the present Government is open to that idea and wants to abolish the licence fee. If you want to ignore the developments that are taking place, then hey, ho!

Chris, I have not stated that your arguments are untrue, indeed, you have made some excellent points. I am merely saying that these problems will be overcome. History tells us that, and the industry itself is relatively unperturbed. The energy issue is already 50% resolved.

I note that you did not answer my specific questions, which are the raisin d'etre of this whole thread.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

History tells us that - what, the last 10 years?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I am certainly not Netflix obsessed, but they are the big boys on the block at the moment.

Netflix isn't for everyone, I guess, but there will be a range of options in the future. I'm looking at the big picture and what might happen in the future, not just what we have now.

I think that some of the contributors to this thread, with every respect that I have for them, are basing their opinions too much on what we have now. Things will change radically over two decades. Look how different things are now from 1996. The pace of change is increasing all the time, so a better reference point might be 1990.

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

I was going back rather longer than that, but have you not noticed any changes since 2006? Really? C'mon, Hugh, we are all living on the same planet. Video streaming wasn't even in my sights in 2006, but now it must comprise at least 40% of my viewing!

Please explain your comment, I am interested to know where you are coming from!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB, your questions were based on a false premise and are therefore not relevant.

VOD subscriptions will not increase until they are universal. No subscription based service has ever achieved that.

The British power grid will never generate sufficient energy to supply continuous HD streaming to every home in the UK at the same time, because that energy requirement is simply too high. Have you not noticed the kerfuffle we're having over one new nuclear power station which won't generate any power for at least 10 years?

And, I say again, the BBC will not, ever, operate on a subscription model. Public Service Broadcasting in the UK (with the present exception of the BBC) is free-to-air, supported by advertising.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You are jumping way ahead of the facts, Chris. I have already acknowledged that VOD subscriptions will increase, so what's your point?

Your point about the British power grid - there are two issues. Firstly, each Government of the day in recent years has failed to keep up with demand, and that's nothing to do with VOD - this would have happened anyway due to the failure to update our energy generation systems.

Secondly, the energy requirement you speak of has already been reduced by 50%, so we are well on the way to addressing this problem.

I notice that you have still not answered my questions to you. I will let our fellow forum viewers draw their own conclusions.

As for your suggestion ( or assertion) that the BBC will never go to subscription only, what do you say about current Government thinking? Just because you disagree doesn't make your opinion right. Where are the facts to support your views?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/...-audience.html

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This is the current government thinking, which does not include subscription only...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-fee-agreement

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But, Hugh, this relates to the next 10 years. There are technical reasons why a subscription only BBC will not work in the short term.

Fast forward 20 years and you will get a different perspective.

A common mistake on this thread is to look at the present rather than the future.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

In the absence of a working time machine, the only way to predict the future is with reference to current and past trends, economics and technical constraints and developments.

This is why you are wrong - you insist on ignoring everything that is and was, to enable your imagination to take over.

Oh, and I have answered every point you have raised, repeatedly, over the last 12 months, and am perfectly happy for "other forum members" to draw their own conclusions. :rolleyes:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

But you have only pointed out the problems. You have still not addressed the basic premise of the thread.

OK, let's take your view that there are problems that must be resolved.

If they are resolved, what then? How do the linear channels remain viable with continually reducing revenue?

You have consistently failed to answer this central question. I'm dying to hear your response, old chap.

And I'm afraid that your stance that you don't want this just doesn't cut it. The question is, how do the broadcast channels remain viable with a diminishing audience/revenue stream? What you want, I'm afraid, is beside the point.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB, I have answered it repeatedly, but just on the off chance you have missed it, I'll repeat it:

Even if it were possible to deliver high definition video on demand to every home in the UK simultaneously, there would still be no need to do so.

VOD is a subscription based service and the UK market has demonstrated that the appetite for subscription TV is limited. Even in the USA there are signs that Netflix subscriber growth is slowing.

VOD is also, by its nature, unable to carry live TV. As soon as it does that it stops being VOD and starts being a linear service, regardless of whether it's delivered by terrestrial or satellite broadcast, or over IP.

You may not have noticed, but some of the most popular things on TV are broadcast live. (Strictly and the X factor for example, but also news and live sports on Sky or BT).

It will be necessary to retain a broadcast schedule indefinitely because live events happen according to a a schedule, and as long as that's the case, the networks that operate the scheduled broadcasts will fill in between their live output with recorded content. For this reason, even if the consumer demand for VOD subscription became half as strong as you assert it will be (and it won't), practical reasons will ensure that linear broadcast TV continues.

Now, there is nothing in the above that I have not posted before, more than once. Feel free to ignore it if you like (as you obviously have done before), but next time you set out another batch of boneheaded questions, please don't try to patronise me with childish mind games about other members' opinions.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Chris, no-one is trying to patronise anyone; certainly not me. I just don't understand why there are some on this forum cannot contemplate change. I have given good reasons why I think that the days of linear TV are numbered. So my questions are not bone headed just because they make different presumptions than yours.

Where have I ignored your views, or those of anyone else, for that matter? I don't want to keep repeating myself, which is why I don't always answer every single point of every post.

I am, however, quite surprised that you think that you cannot stream live TV. You can, and the streaming service can announce when the stream becomes available. When we still had video tapes, it was hard to envisage how we could start watching a recording while it was still recording, but nowadays we do that all the time with our recordings on the Tivo box.

Now, what is this killer point you have made that I have ignored?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Could I point out that to try and forecast technology directions, and consumer adoption/reaction for 20 years in the future is problematic.

20 years ago, the height of hand-held technology was a Nokia 6310, and mobile technology meant a 7lb laptop with a 13" screen, and UK satellite and cable TV was in it's infancy - no one could have forecast that we would have a handheld device that was a phone, a camera, a cine camera, a voice recorder, GPS, radio, TV, film viewer, games console, messaging system, video conferencing, etc etc., all in one handheld device.

You, or I, have no idea of the technology utilisation in 20 years time.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB, it makes no difference whether the broadcast is an IP stream or a satellite or terrestrial radio signal. As soon as it is delivered at a pre-determined time, it is operating according to a linear schedule.

Thank you for acknowledging that linear TV can, and in fact must, continue.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You and I both know that I am talking about the conventional linear broadcast TV channels versus streamed video on demand.

If your answer above is the view you hold on this matter, then at last we can agree on something!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And, as has also been repeatedly pointed out to you over the last 12 months, the way in which it is delivered is not relevant. Sometimes I watch BBC1 in the kitchen via a tablet. Just because the channel is being delivered over IP doesn't mean it isn't linear broadcast TV.

Or are you subtly shifting your position in the face of evidence after all?

(No, by the way, I'm not saying all TV will be Internet-delivered in 10 years. We will have neither the bandwidth nor the power necessary in that time frame).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I don't disagree, which is why I find it hard to understand why some cannot contemplate any change at all.

I am putting forward a 'what if...' scenario, and so far no-one has been able to put forward a solution as to how linear broadcast channels can continue to survive in this hostile environment. A lot of barriers have been put in the way, as well as personal preferences that some imagine will make a difference, but no answers to the central question as to what the conventional broadcasters may do to stave off the continuing drift towards streaming.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

The question relates to the survival of existing conventional linear broadcast channels with the steady and unrelenting drift towards video streaming. Once again, you have completely avoided the 'what if...' scenario.

By the way, the reference period is 20 years. That's a long time in this world of change.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

They don't need to "do" anything, beyond possibly running a companion on-demand product of their own in order to retain brand loyalty. All the UK PSB operators have already done so.

VOD is a subscription product, and therefore has limited reach. To extrapolate current subscriber growth forwards and assume it will reach 100% is an erroneous use of statistics. US subscriber growth is already slowing.

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

By the way, your reference period was 10 years...you really have shifted your view based on the evidence presented you. Well done.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not very different. Linear TV was king in 1996. And in 1976. And in 1956. I think you have to go back to 1936 for a significant difference (when linear radio was king instead)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I doubt there will be as many, circulation figures are horrific and get worse year in year out, more will follow the independent online only as the elderly population dies of or just gets sick of paying to read yesterdays news today.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nation...ims-sunday-top

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Most of us didn't have the Internet in 1996, and Internet shopping was pretty well unheard of.

Also, we did not have on demand in 1996, let alone Internet streaming.

A lot has changed in 20 years, more than many realise until they start really thinking about it.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The biggest complaint of the Sky Q system so far is that the home button takes you to Top Picks rather than the TV Guide. Funny that isn't it when you lead us to believe people's interest in linear tv and the tv guide is waning.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It may not be what people want, but this is the way it is going. This is all driven by competition and economics.

What we want does not necessarily come into it.

But we will eventually learn to embrace it...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB, will reply to your other post when I have time. But your article does not help you. The government are saying the BBc should become subscription, it is the journalist. Secondly, this chap wants his cake and to eat it. He does not want the license fee, but he wants free BBC Radio - that all subscribers pay for. Stuff that. I can't imagine that going down well with people who will potentially pay for the service. Thirdly, he states the government will subsidise some programming (pretty sure that will come from a tax on TV if the licence fee disappears) Fourthly, I stopped reading this drivel after the free radio statement but I have not seen him say linear tv will die out either, apologies if he does. Ultimately, the government just need to halve the licence fee and make everyone who watches TV (or streaming services) pay.

On a different note, you seem to be wanting answers for certain questions, from some posters, yet recently you seem to be taking large amounts of umbridge when I ask you to answer questions about your premise.

So tell me, how many services do you think we will see, much do you think they will all the subscripritions cost? Will the companies allow people to drift in and out when they want or tie them into contacts, what do the poor do if the subscription for the BBC is more than the license fee? Do the elderly still get free TV? If you were in charge of it all, how would it all work if your premise came true?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Just another of the many reasons you're wrong - in the long run, the market delivers what customers want.

Your brave new world of VOD is beginning to sound like school dinners ... we don't want it ... but we'll learn to embrace it ...