Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And yet, school dinners happened, Chris :banghead:

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 ----------

Are you doubting that the Government have been considering a subscription funded BBC? It was in the Green Paper (referred to in this link).
http://www.theguardian.com/media/liv...r-live-updates

To my knowledge, the Government have not stated that linear TV will die out. I don't think that has been addressed. My view on this is simply informed by the fact that video streaming is cheaper to manage for broadcasters, who no longer have to rely on scheduling, links between programmes, etc, and it is becoming more popular with time, which stands to impact adversely on advertising revenue.

All this talk about what people want, and the notion that there are diehards in society who refuse to imagine a different way of doing things and resolutely fold their arms saying "It's OK as it is and I'm not changing" - do you really think that this attitude will ensure that nothing changes? I'm sorry, but if advertising revenues no longer cover the expense of running TV channels, they will wither on the vine, like it or not. That's the economic reality.

I have not taken umbrage with you, Harry, but I am surprised that you seem to think that anyone can forecast the future to the level of detail you expect!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Advertising revenues don't just cover 'the cost of running channels' - they also pay for the programmes to be made.

Do we expect programme creation to wither on the vine as well?

Re the BBC Charter Review, the Public Consultation responses have just been published.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._Responses.pdf

On funding, the responses were

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Hi

I’ve been lurking and watching this thread for months and finally decided I’d join the forum so I could chip in with some thoughts.

The burst of growth that Netflix and Now TV have enjoyed in the UK is because they’re new products which address a want for something between the ‘fat’ TV subs of Virgin Media and Sky and the FTA options.

Anything new which meets a desire/need will see good early growth but the demand for that product will still be limited and eventually uptake will flatten. Even with population growth, the untapped potential future market will reduce each year.

This has happened with smartphones, the iPad and 3D TV. It’s also why Virgin Media and Sky have seen subs slow, though this is also in part due to the presence of TalkTalk and BT TV which offer low priced pay-TV packages.

Those low-cost solutions also compete with, and lessen the appeal of, Netflix, Now TV and Amazon Prime because they provide ‘just enough’ extra TV for for people who don’t want to shell out £30+ per month.

We now have a host of firms competing for customers (who are expecting/demanding ever-lower prices) while also competing with one another for content rights.

The pull between these competing economic factors means broadcasters need to keep their non-rights overheads as low as possible and the cheapest solution for them is, and will remain, linear broadcast via satellite and aerial.

The idea that their response to falling audiences - assuming we accept that audiences would drain away as has been predicted - would be to sink hundreds of millions of pounds into data centres and new VOD infrastructure is fantasy.

Also, while SVOD services such as Netflix and Amazon may have some good original shows, they still rely on the BBC, ITV, the US studios and independent broadcasters for 90% of their content.

If, for example, ITV or the BBC decided that Netflix was draining their audience away they could simply stop supplying it with the shows it needs to convince customers that the service is worth £8pm.

Would a Netflix which lacked Benidorm or Doctor Who or Episodes or Miranda or Endeavour or Top Gear or Cuckoo still hold the same appeal? To some who just want to watch House of Cards, yes. To those expecting a library of content? Possibly less so.

The vast majority of original programmes available in the UK are commissioned by traditional broadcasters who increasingly are involved in the onward sale, repeats and home entertainment releases of those shows.

For example, ITV is aping the BBC in releasing more of its shows on its own DVD label and handling its own international sales.It also makes shedloads of cash making shows like Teen Wolf and Scream for US networks.

In short - they’re FAR LESS reliant on advertising revenue than was ever the case and they have options beyond selling shows to Netflix or any other SVOD provider.

They also have some of the UK’s top rated shows and so can afford to insist that audiences come to them on the platform they decide to make those available on - for the cost reasons I set out above, that will long remain a linear, broadcast channel.

As others on here have said, sports is something people tend to want to watch live. Whether it was shown on Netflix or Sky Sports or BT Sport that’s linear broadcasting. BT Sport is streamed on BT TV, but it’s not VOD or SVOD, it’s a linear channel with a schedule.

Netflix is not going to sink £3-4bn into the premier league just for UK rights because it would not be able to make back that money. It’s not going to grab rugby and the Champions League from BT or golf and cricket for the same reason.

The cost of taking top sports off of traditional broadcasters in each of the markets Netflix operates in would be ruinous under its current business model. And that’s before it had to start building the extra data centre and streaming capacity to cope with 2m+ simultaneous HD streams of Arsenal v Man U.

And for as long as people are paying for Sky Sports or BT Sport they’ll be susceptible to adding a few channels to their package for an extra couple of quid - channels which allow the broadcasters to better monetise their playout systems but which then dent the need to take up a SVOD subscription alongside the broadcasters’.

And those who’ve refused to move entirely to pay-TV, and those who have no interest in Netflix, NOW TV, BT TV or TalkTalk, aren’t going to vote for a Govt which threatened to lock the BBC up behind a paywall.

Even Sky has told MPs that the BBC isn’t set up to become a subscription service.

David Wheeldon, Sky’s Director of Public Policy and Public Affairs, has said:

“Marketing, managing customer relationships and ongoing subscription relationships, managing customer churn—all things that I do not think the BBC has any experience of—putting it firmly into a commercial environment. You would unavoidably change the nature of the organisation.”

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ds/315/315.pdf

When even Sky think it’d be a challenge and would change the BBC, why would any Govt even try making that case to voters? Why would it pick that fight?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You get my vote for best first post.

But I'm afraid in this case you're whistling in a hurricane, because of dimwittery like this:

---------- Post added at 12:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 ----------

Yes, the school canteen, that well known court of competing catering outfits with all their rival product offerings.

Honestly, OB, your level of understanding of how a free market works (or even what a free market is) is quite prodigiously awful.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Chris, honestly! It was my little joke, but don't forget it was your analogy!

One thing we can agree on is that TV Watcher's post was thoughtful and his arguments as to why he thinks our conventional channels will survive were effectively considered and communicated.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Some interesting information in ITV's 2015 Financial Results, just released.

http://www.itvplc.com/sites/itvplc/f...n%202015_0.pdf

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...8&d=1459607380

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Come on Hugh what do they know about anything.:D

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

ITV's strategic risks include:

The TV market moves significantly towards pay television as a preferred model, negatively impacting ITV's free-to-air revenue

And...

A faster than expected shift to video on demand or other technologies causes a sustained loss of advertising revenue.

So if ITV themselves have identified these risks, the presumptions I have made cannot be that far out. The only real questions are how far will this go and how do the broadcast channels adapt?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You appear to be confusing risks and issues - a risk is something that may impact your company, measured by likelyhood and impact; if it's highly likely, but with minimal/medium impact, it's usually survivable with appropriate mitigation.

An issue is something that is already negatively impacting your business; the fact that it is a risk, rather than an issue, shows that they don't believe it is a serious threat at this time - look at the other risks on their Annual Report.

They show the mitigation, but also state in the previous commentary They would have to have this on their Strategic Risk Register, because if they didn't, the Industry Analysts (and probably their Auditors) would highlight the omission.

For example, we had a risk on our IT Risk Register about what would happen if we lost Mains Power and our Standby generator - the likelyhood was extremely low, but impact very high, so we had to have a mitigation plan in place, but we still had to have it on our High Level Risk Register.

I have to say I have more faith in their presumptions (based on their industry knowledge and experience) than your assumptions.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I am not confusing anything! On the contrary, I have made it abundantly clear on this thread that I believe there is no immediate threat to linear TV.

ITV have identified 'a faster than expected shift to VOD' as being a risk to their business, and they are right to do so. Note that they do expect the shift to take place, it is the speed of it that is the big question.

Once again, another post that confuses the present with the longer term future.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

To be honest OB your posts have been quite a bit like quicksand of late as you seemed to have chopped and changed your stance whenever you think its supports your one eyed view of things.:)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm not sure what it is that you think I'm changing my stance on, Den. I remain of the view that audiences on conventional broadcast channels will be in long term decline in favour of video streaming/ on demand and this will lead to the reduction and ultimately the closure of linear broadcasting as it is now, due to the drying up of advertising revenue.

I cannot think why you and Harry think I've changed that central message.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Surely you think that some live channels will continue to exist? Sports channels and other live events need to be linear.
I think it's fair to say that on-demand channels will probably reduce the number of linear channels over time and that everyone agrees with this.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I've said this on here before , look at ITV for instance who have ITV , ITV 2 , ITV 3 , ITV 4 , ITV Be , ITV Encore plus the many +1 channels.

Over the next 10 years I'd expect that number to decrease to perhaps 3 or 4 with increased use of ITV Hub.

Linear tv is going nowhere however I share the same opinion as you that we may see the number of channels reduce over the coming years.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It is possible to view live sport through streaming, Andrew. In fact, if you look at the BBC i-Player, you can watch live programming now.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

When it is live, it is on a schedule and it is linear.

The mode of delivery is not relevant.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Precisely. At last we agree on something!

However, you know very well that the argument is about whether video streaming will take over from our conventional broadcast channels. Not everyone understands that live (linear) programmes can be streamed. I was merely explaining this point.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sorry I misunderstood. So the question is whether streaming will replace cable, terrestrial and satellite broadcasting?
Have to say that my technical knowledge is quite limited but I'm sure this is a possibility. Only this month, Channel 4 added live channels to its All4 Android app.http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...o-android-app/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sorry but re-reading this entire thread won't give that impression to any impartial reader.

You have been arguing that linear TV channels days are numbered. The phrase "linear TV" is in the thread title. All your early contributions to the thread focused on the ease with which you set up favourites and preferences with your chosen on-demand service provider.

The broadcast medium is not relevant. Linear TV is still linear TV when watching it via the mobile iplayer.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I'm sorry, but I thought everybody understood what this thread was about. 'Linear TV' is shorthand for our existing broadcast channels and I was following the lead of others in describing it thus.

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Yes, Andrew, on the basis that over time, TV audiences will migrate away from our conventional broadcast channels which are scheduled and constantly peppered with commercial breaks. My argument is that it costs money to organise programmes on the conventional broadcast channels (eg scheduling, links between programmes, etc) whereas on a streaming service, the programmes just have to be uploaded. Furthermore, with a smaller audience, advertising revenue is reduced, leading to cheaper programmes being broadcast, exacerbating the audience decline. Ultimately, such channels will become uneconomic to run.

This isn't going to happen for a few years in my opinion, but over time, the economic reality will begin to bite. We will see fewer channels, which will bolster income for those that remain, but ultimately they too will fail.

So what I think will happen will be that we will be left with a range of streaming services to choose from. Not everyone on here is happy with that prospect and some are in denial, without being able to come up with solutions to prevent an audience decline. They say that the existing channels will simply refuse to let the big streaming companies have their original material, not realising that there is not sufficient material to enable the TV studios to make a profit in that scenario.

Instead of bundles of broadcast channels, we are likely to have bundles of streaming services and other demand viewing and box sets from cable and satellite companies.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And QC checked. And catalogued so users can find them. And usage monitored so users can be billed and content providers paid. And adverts inserted(!) And assets removed when they have expired.

Pretty much the same as managing broadcast, in fact.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB, can we clarify please:

BBC1 is a linear broadcast channel when you tune in to channel 1 via Freeview.
BBC1 is a linear broadcast channel when you tune in to channel 101 via Freesat or Sky.
BBC1 is a linear broadcast channel when you open the iplayer and click the currently scheduled programme in the TV guide.

Do you agree that in all three situations, regardless of the means used to receive the transmission, that BBC1 is a linear TV channel?

A simple yes or no will do.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, of course it is, Chris. However, this debate relates to our conventional linear broadcast channels and how they will continue to survive with audiences shifting to streaming and other on demand services.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You actually mentioned Netflix multiple times , of course Netflix has no linear channels and the whole service is based around On Demand content.

You seem to be consistently shifting your argument , correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't your main point that the likes of Netflix would eventually see the death of linear channels ?

Somewhat ironically you now seem to be including linear broadcasting in these streaming services the very thing you said was toast.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I would have thought that once the system was set up, this would be a straight forward digital process, spiderplant. However, the insertion of ads by our commercial TV broadcasters would be an added complication, I agree..

I would have thought that a lot of time and money would be spent working out schedules for programmes to be shown, fitting it all into the available time frames, making the announcements between programmes, that our traditional broadcasters have to do. However, I am happy to be corrected by those in the know such as your good self!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think the biggest cost is generally always content followed by marketing. Whether it's building apps or having a continuity announcer, these costs are far less significant.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Oh my word, OB, night working and wanting to spend time with the other half, don't help when wanting to reply to you. I apologise again for not replying, and I was clearly wrong about the government and subscriptions for BBC. As for not replying to the other posts, well, this one takes priority. Please don't try and wriggle out of it that easily. I challenged you ages ago about the fact linear tv being streamed over the Internet is, and would, still be linear based. This was one of the many arguments that you have disregarded in the past, and now you are trying to back track on this. I even asked you to clarify your comments about internet players a number of posts ago, and you did not. This won't wash with me, you have clearly realised your original premise of linear TV being dead in 10 years was wrong, you then changed that to 20 years (although you never change your mind). Now you are saying linear TV will survive via the Internet, even though you previously denied it would not - glad you still don't change your mind.

What a massive climb down OB, and what a shame you probably won't admit you have changed your mind.


That being said, you have stood up to intense criticism of your premise and have fought admirably against many arguments and detractors - even if you have had to change your views frequently. You fully deserve credit for your tenancity.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Hi, Harry, nice to hear from you.

I can assure you, I am not trying to 'wriggle out' of anything. I said a long time ago that sport could be streamed live over the Internet (a concept some found strange as they believed that only pre-recorded material could be viewed that way). What I meant, and I'm sorry if I did not make it sufficiently clear, was that scheduled live TV would not be available via the Internet once our conventional broadcast channels close down. However, I did make clear that programmes could be made available for streaming from a pre-announced time. Hence, you would not have to retain existing sports channels to show live TV.

I said in post #63 on this thread that there was unlikely to be an adequate broadband infrastructure accessible by the whole country for 10+ years, but my expectation on the survival of the broadcast linear channels is that they could survive 20.

However, Harry, I say again, this is a discussion and people are entitled to be persuaded by the arguments of other contributors.

I have not deliberately avoided any question that has been raised on here, although some posts are so long that it wouldn't be surprising! However, I would also say that I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how anyone could expect the commercial TV companies to continue to operate existing channels if they were no longer financially viable. You did say that they could rely on original programming and not allow re-broadcasting by other streaming services, but unfortunately, the financial case for this will not stack up. The broadcasters can't sell on their shows quick enough to make more money out of them (take the new series of Marcella starting on ITV next week - a deal for Netflix to show this series has already been done!).

Instead of criticising the fundamental idea that linear broadcast channels will never diminish and ultimately close, what is needed on here is a well thought through argument from my detractors as to how these channels can continue to operate with a diminishing audience (and therefore, diminishing income). It is not sufficient to say that Internet viewing will not continue to grow, largely at the expense of conventional TV viewing. Even the likes of Sky and ITV understand this impending threat. My question is what happens if it does?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Linear channels like Sky Sports and ITV won't close. These channels will continue. They will just adapt as they have been to enable viewing on many devices aside the traditional TV and diversifying into owning content. Linear TV channels are not separate entities, they are part of large media companies.
I don't view linear as = cable, satellite or terrestrial broadcasting. I view it as live TV however it's watched. There will always be demand for linear viewing and on-demand viewing.
On-demand viewing has convenience and does not tie you to a TV schedule, location or programming a PVR. But it is sometimes described as a lonely experience when contrasted with the hype, media coverage and live tweets of linear TV
Live viewing is essential for sports and works well for TV series that generate water cooler moments and social media interaction.
Both will continue - BBC has launched on-demand services and it may be that Netflix will launch live channels. It's possible that some linear channels could close down but it's equally possible that their costs will reduce significantly ensuring that they will still be viable. It's impossible to predict anything over more than five years ahead.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

No, but then nobody has presented a convincing argument about why they would be no longer financially viable.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, if everyone except Chris and Harry were streaming instead of watching them, it would be rather difficult to justify continuing as now, don't you think?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

There are actually systems that can automate a lot of the processes involved in running a linear TV channel..

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

I agree with this post. Sky in particular have had problems because they've reached the point where they've sold Sky to nearly all the customers who are willing and able to pay for it. This has, as you have said, happened in the Smartphone market. Netflix and Amazon Video will reach this level at some point.

It's also worth noting that 20 years ago, when Sky was reporting massively increasing user numbers, people were predicting the end of Free To Air TV, yet the existing terrestrial channels are still dominating the viewing figures.

Also, it's worth noting that Chris is right. The actual definition of Linear TV channel does not mention platform. It is any TV channel where programmes are shown at set time, on a set day on the channel.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I know.

I simply cited "satellite and aerial" because they're inherently cheaper technologies than streaming and commercial factors will always lead the broadcasters to the cheapest tech.

Hence why so many still operate SD channels rather than HD.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It's actually cheaper for broadcasters to have streaming apps on VM than live cable channels and cheaper to have IPTV channels on Freeview than to have conventional terrestrial channels.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not when you factor in the costs of hiring datacenter / CDN capability which is an ongoing cost which increases the more data you ship - i.e. the more viewers you get the more your overheads increase.

The cost of streaming The Night Manager or even Corrie in HD to the same audiences they get on TV would be huge.

In contrast, while terrestrial capacity is expensive it and DSAT capacity cost the same whether 1 person is watching or 20 million.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Aaah that makes sense. So for small channels like Vintage TV on Freeview IPTV it will be more cost effective to be on IPTV but once you cross a threshold of viewers it's cheaper to have a full-blown terrestrial channel.
(Presumably the same applies to the foreign channels on VM's Worldbox - if they become popular then it's worth their while getting a proper cable channel.)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, certainly a lot cheaper for them than a DTT slot which trade for megabucks.

Most streaming channels I've seen have been relatively low quality, this was also true of NOW TV when it fist launched and some users complained of outages even on the VOD side of the service.

They've spent the cash and fixe it. The app/web stream for BT Sport also had outages due to suddenly spikes in popularity.

If you're doing it properly running VOD and streaming can be just as expensive as other broadcasting types, if not more so, for popular services.

The only point I'm really trying to make is that the day when ITV decide to move solely to streaming or VOD is a very long way off!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thank you for that clarification, TV Watcher - that was a very helpful post.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

You only need to look at BT's UHD offering to see delivering TV over fibre still has its problems. Many of BT's Infinity customers still can't receive the 40mbps required to view the channel.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

http://advanced-television.com/2016/...ing-to-double/

Viewing on our conventional broadcast channels is forecast to decline from its present 80% to 53% within the next 10 years.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I wonder what would happen if the main producers of content, who also own channels, stopped selling their content to broadband content suppliers?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

The broadband content suppliers would go elsewhere for content and the main producers of content would have less revenue and be less able to produce more content.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Selling original content is what makes the process profitable. Take that away and factor in reduced advertising revenue and that would spell disaster for the channel following such rules.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It would be good to see how important advertising is in the run of things. It's key for ITV but significantly less important for subscription services. Indeed, Sky is happy to forgo viewers and therefore advertising revenue for Sky Atlantic in order to retain it as a Sky exclusive.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, but bear in mind that Sky has very little original material to sell anyway. Most content is bought in from other providers.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So the same as Netflix then ? Who's content is majority bought in.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

That wasn't my point. We are talking about the continuing viability of our TV channels and the point was made that they could stop selling their original shows to the streaming companies. I was pointing out that Sky had very little original material to sell as most of it is bought in.

Some channels do have scope to sell on their material, such as the BBC and ITV. However most digital channels, including Sky, do not.

I'm not sure why you thought your point was relevant, muppetman. I wasn't criticising Sky, just saying that they have very little scope to sell on original programmes.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Who produces Sky News and it's many magazine shows ?

Sky Sports and it's many magazine shows

Sky Arts original content

Drama , Comedy , Talk Shows , Lifestyle shows across many channels.

Many of Sky's shows have been sold to overseas broadcasters. Doesn't Netflix show Penny Dreadful a co production with Showtime ?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I disagree with you, they have lots of original content and have a separate company established to market their rights and other companies rights overseas. They wouldn't bother doing this if they had very few rights. https://skyvision.sky.com/

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And yet the same article says

So even the experts don't have the same certainty you have previously shown.

---------- Post added at 14:08 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

In fact Sky Plc has quite a lot of content to sell. You may be familiar with one of the group's most popular shows, Great British Bake Off ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-producer.html

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OK, fair comment, Sky have accelerated their investment in original programme, although their spend is currently about half that of ITV. However, the point remains that failure to allow other services to buy up original content may deny the streaming services of their material, but it will also deny our broadcast channels of much needed income if advertising income declines.

Furthermore, the streaming services will simply get their material from elsewhere.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Where?

That bland statement covers a huge area - it often costs millions to make programmes/series, and there needs to be a return on investment for the programme makers; no one has yet shown a business model that does not require a vast majority of streaming services libraries coming from the existing programme makers (as they have the studios and the back catalogues).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Exactly. The economics of the streaming services only stack up if they can bulk up their libraries with relatively cheap content from other broadcasters/producers.

If, for example, the BBC pulled Doctor Who from Netflix, the costs of making a show which appealed to the same audience would be many, many times more than Netflix pays the BBC for streaming rights.

Making back that cash would be very hard, certainly more so than recouping what it pays the BBC.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Apart from their own original programming and films, I would imagine the bulk wwould come from the US if the UK market dried up.

TV entrepreneur backs Old Boy
 

[Walter Iuzzolino's company operates as Channel 4’s foreign acquisition service, buying shows ranging from vampire saga Heartless to Deutschland 83. Before then, he commissioned edgy shows like the The Undateables and Embarrassing Bodies.]
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...deutschland-83

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

He is completely wrong.

Some people binge watch. Most people don't.

The act of transmitting The Night Manager at 9pm on a Sunday evening is a more powerful piece of marketing than anything in any VOD operator's arsenal. Sat watching TV this evening I heard it casually referenced on two separate occasions, in two different programmes, such has been its impact and passage into the common consciousness.

Re: TV entrepreneur backs Old Boy
 

Perhaps he has been reading a revered member of this forum postings too much.;)

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well, he is in the business and knows a thing or two about it which leads him to the conclusions he has expressed.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Funny, that. Because when I posted these views of Colin Callander, former HBO president and more recently an exec producer on the BBC's Wolf Hall:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-...ormer-hbo-boss

... you said:

So, to summarise, when an industry insider agrees with you, he "knows a thing or two", but when he doesn't, he's simply pushing his own self-interest.

If you ever wondered why most contributors in this thread aren't taking your arguments very seriously, this is why.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not at all, Chris. The point I was making about Colin Callender's response was really just pointing out that many of the detractors from the argument that streaming services will take over are those who make the point about watercooler moments, it's what people prefer, the TV audience wants others to decide what they watch, etc.

The reality is that changes in viewing habits have already started and time alone will show how far that goes. To simply say 'it's not going to happen' is not very convincing, frankly.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So in other words, you think he's wrong because you disagree with him, and as for the other guy, you agree with him because you think he's right.

Which would make some sort of sense if it weren't for the fact that you said you agree with Iuzzolino because he's an insider.

Point is, so is Callander.

You're not very convincing.

Oh, and it's also worth pointing out that the post I quoted is one of the ones where you predicted everything would be so different in 10 (now 9) years...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

What I was doing, Chris, was pointing out that you can't just say something isn't going to happen without an explanation when someone in the industry says it will.

The arguments about technology issues preventing streaming from dominating TV are good arguments from you which I accept need to be overcome.

But this constant nitpicking and character assassination don' t do you much credit, I am afraid. These are the ploys people use when they are losing an argument.

Please, let's just concentrate on the subject at hand.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I know you'd love for me to drop this but I'm not going to. This discussion has been going on for over a year now, and the longer it does, the more evidence there is of you treating evidence inconsistently and occasionally changing your position while insisting you're not.

Your opening premise has been well and truly demolished, with evidence, multiple times. You've painted yourself into a corner, dug yourself into a hole, pick the metaphor that suits. But if you genuinely are concentrating on the subject, soon or later you're going to have to accept that TV entertainment will not be radically different in 2025, and start thinking about how VOD will play its part in the overall mix of entertainment delivery methods, and how it will be paid for.

It isn't taking over, and though I don't imagine for a second you're going to admit it, I think you now know this.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Are you serious? You won't need channels to show sports on line? Who is going to own the rights? What happens if a sports provider owns the rights to more than one sport being shown at the same time? I.E. a football match and a golf tournament? What will the content owners do, just have a basic website with two or more non-website branded links which take websites back 20 years? Of course they won't. They will be labelled as channels. When they have more than event showing, again, it will be scheduled and become linear TV.

Go on, give me a laugh, why wont scheduled live TV be available "when" conventional TV broadcast channels "close down"?

I will continue to criticize the fundemantal idea that linear broadcast channels will never diminsh, and ultimately close, because that is your original premise, which you have apparently never changed!! As soon as something is set to a schedule, it is linear TV.

The channels will continue OB, I can't express that simply enough. Lots of people have agreed with you that some channels will fold in the future (and that is my answer to the newest discussion you propose - even though you have not changed your mind or anything since your original premise), as they do now, but you seem to want to ignore that point too, ironically. So just to be clear, some channels will close in future, many won't. How much clearer can I be on another of the questions you have raised (that have not changed from your original premise.) You have happily mentioned channel owners/content owners will continue to sell their content to Netflix etc (as with Marcella), and I have said before if they do continue to do this (and they will for as long it is financially viable for them) and Netflix etc become a big enough threat to them, they will simply stop selling the content to them, or charge Netflix a fortune for the rights of the best shows they produce.

I appreciate I have not replied to all your old posts - we will run out of space;) but do ask me more questions directly, if you think I have ignored anything important.

You have continued to deliberatley not answer questions on basic costs and how things will run in future (among many others raised by myself and others). So if you were in charge of everything in 20 years, how often would people have to pay a subscription, how much would you charge for the privalige of each subscription, and how streaming services would you have? Please don't give me rubbish about not knowing the future, (you are happy to tell us what you think will happen with broadcast channels) have the courage of your convictions and answer the questions.:)

Re: TV entrepreneur backs Old Boy
 

Unfortunately, he can not say anything else. A large part of the programming he has bought is only available online. When I looked at it the website, it looked to me that a number of programmes looked rubbish, and were the dregs of the shows no other channels wanted. I guess a large part of his reputation, and job, now will rely on the success of the viewership of his foreign shows.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:25 ----------

Lol. Where did I say his opinion is not valid? I merely highlighted the big boss man of Netflix clearly does not share your views of linear TV dying in less than 20 years. It clearly does not help your case, so perhaps you should actually be questioning his views!!

Netflix shares fall 10%
 

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

l would not read much into that as shares go up and down on a regular basis.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not by ten per cent they don't!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

A total overreaction in my opinion Andrew.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Not necessarily. Tech companies, whether startups or more established ones doing something very new, are often priced more on future potential rather than current earnings (which is how the dotcom bubble occurred). When it becomes apparent that future earnings have been overestimated, there can be a sudden, sharp price correction (which is why the dotcom bubble burst).

Largely because of the dotcom crash, investors are generally more cautious these days and are liable to bail out at the first sign that earnings potential isn't being realised. In Netflix's case it isn't current earnings that has disappointed anyone (their earnings are on target), but their international growth (which is not on target). This follows a failure to hit target for two consecutive quarters in their domestic market last year.

In short, investors are beginning to wake up to the possibility that Netflix may reach saturation point some considerable way short of where some people assert it is heading.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I feel netflix shares may go down quite a bit as quite a few will cancel netflix due to their vpn/proxy blocking, prsonally i'm happy with netflix my proxy is blocked but plenty of content on the uk netflix still.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I have concluded that there is clearly never going to be a consensus on this issue and therefore perhaps a quick summary of this thread is in order.

The original proposition was that with changing viewing habits and the increasing number of user friendly video streaming services, the current trend would ultimately lead to the closure of the existing commercial TV companies.

The premise was based on the fact that programmes delivered by way of streaming services were available on demand 24/7, many of them without interruptions from commercials and of course unconstrained by inflexible schedules. So programmes that are an hour long on conventional commercial TV take only 45 minutes of so to watch on SVOD, and telly addicts are able to squeeze in another hour long programme every 4 hours. As the younger generation become adults and settle down into family life, they will expect to be able to choose and watch their shows when they want to and watch them without interruption. This behaviour has already commenced, and it will rub off on older generations with time. Judging by our experience with the advent of the internet, I would say this process will take up to a decade to embrace the vast majority of the population.

Clearly, watching TV by conventional methods will decline with time, and there will come a crunch point beyond which commercial broadcast linear channels will not be able to turn a profit. This has led me to conclude that these channels will start to disappear in the next decade as more streaming services become available.

Although I have said all along that streaming/on demand services will take over, I do concede that the main players in broadcast TV may find ways of keeping their channels on air, but to do so they will need to find other income streams. For example, either individually or collectively, the main terrestrial channels may invest in their own streaming service like Netflix, supported by subscriptions. They will probably come under pressure by the Government to offer an alternative without subscription and funded by advertising for those who cannot afford to, or do not want to pay for their TV.

I have assumed that the cost of running a conventional TV channel, with all the links, scheduling, etc, would lead to these linear broadcast channels closing, but some contributors on this thread have suggested that this may not be as costly as I have assumed. If that is correct, and both streaming services and conventional channels can be run side by side without being financially prohibitive, then this may well save the broadcast channels from a complete wipeout. However, I would not be at all surprised to see a reduction in their number, if nothing else.

My detractors have thrown a number of things at me and very strong views have been expressed that although the amount of streaming will increase, it will not be at the expense of our conventional channels because it will find its own level. It has also been suggested that there are technical problems which prevent video streaming from being available to 100% of the population. That of course, is true, but it is a stretch in my opinion to believe that these problems cannot be resolved in the course of 15-20 years, particularly as those in the industry fully expect video streaming to be the name of the game in the future. So, whilst these problems are acknowledged, we can now only wait and see whether they become sticking points in the expansion of the availability of streaming services.

I have been asked specifically about what kind of choices we will have in my vision of the future, but this is more difficult to assess, because unexpected developments do happen. Looking to the future from here, it would appear that TV will be dominated by global providers like Netflix, Amazon, Comcast, etc and supplemented by national providers such as our terrestrials. Even Sky may go global - it is already making strides in that direction.

One of the more pedantic arguments that have come out of this thread is that it is not correct to describe VOD as being separate from linear because it is possible to stream live programmes. Just for the record, I do accept this completely and I have said from the start that some VOD programming will be live. However, all over the internet, linear TV is assumed to refer to our conventional broadcast TV channels, and this is certainly what I have meant by it throughout.

Some have suggested that there will be a section of the population that will resist on demand viewing and that no Government would preside over a situation in which such a system was forced upon them. That argument simply does not wash. If the provision of conventional channels becomes uneconomic, the Government certainly won't step in, except to ensure a smooth transition. This is what happened when analogue was phased out in favour of digital TV.

It has also been said that our conventional channels could refuse to sell their original programmes to the SVOD providers, denuding them of content. However, this ignores the fact that the broadcast channels are heavily reliant these days on selling their shows in this way in order to increase revenue streams. Many channels of course rely on repeat and bought in material and so would find that they had very little to sell to the big streaming players anyway.

In my view, if the BBC were to move from the licence fee to a subscription based service, this would enhance the move to SVOD. All viewers would then have some money (from the saving they make) to purchase alternative provision if they wish to do so.

There has also been a lot of talk about 'what people want' and the fact that some prefer to switch on the box and channel hop. I don't deny that of course, but if I am right and the ability to make existing conventional linear TV channels pay becomes impossible, then I'm afraid that people will just have to get used to it, as they tend to do with any major change in society and how it works.

This has been a most interesting debate and I really did not expect it to become so heated, but I guess now we can sit back and watch things change - in whatever way they are going to change - in the future.

I, for one, will be thoroughly looking forward in the short term to seeing how Virgin Media's commitment to VOD as a means of providing us with exclusive content in the future unfolds.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Has anyone else noticed the great increase in the number of adverts being shown before and during on demand programs? This greatly annoys me because it's now little difference between recording programs. I know it's the way on demand is being funded or partly funded but still annoying.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, particularly as you cannot skip them. They really need to offer a subscription or pay per view alternative for those who do not want to sit through commercials and are prepared to pay for the privilege.

If the terrestrials don't do this, they will find that most viewers will end up seeking content from other providers who are more forward looking.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sky claim not to worry about the overnight audiences

https://corporate.sky.com/media-cent...exible_viewing

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well he would say that though.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

To be fair Den I'd imagine Sky don't worry as much about overnight figures it's not like Sky are dependant on them for ad revenue.

I'm not for one moment suggesting Sky homes don't watch linear , in fact I'm sure I read recently that quite a high percentage of the BBC's live viewing came from Sky homes plus with over 6 million subscribers on the platform subscribing to Sky Sports that's quite a lot watching live.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

It is gratifying that Sky is at last increasing the amount of original programming, and also that after a slow start, they are now embracing on demand viewing. The benefits for them are now clear to see. Of course it matters not a jot at what time audiences access on demand!

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Lol, what a load of guff. There are so many things I could take up with on this post, but I know full well it will be pointless. I am pleased you admit linear TV will not die though, and will be available to view over the internet - even though you this disregarded the point when I challenged you with it some months ago.:rolleyes:.

---------- Post added at 08:53 ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 ----------

Why is it gratifying OB? They have had on demand for many, many years, and have embraced punters using them, hence the vast catalogue they now have. Sky have, and will continue to benefit from on-demand viewers. In the year I have had Sky, a number of on demand shows have had ad's with them, so they now benefit even more from ad revenue.

I wish I had your blind faith in your belief that Netflix et al won't follow suit in a few years. I know the CEO of Netflix says otherwise at the moment, but when they hit saturation point for new members, they will need to get money from other revenue streams.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So many things to take up, Harry? Well, this is the place to do it. The fact that I may disagree with you or you with me does not make the argument pointless.

I have never thought that linear TV in terms of on demand or streaming would die out. My reference to linear TV, as you well know, was to our traditional broadcast channels like ITV 1 and Channel 4. All over the internet, 'linear TV' is shorthand for that. But let's not get involved in such pedantic issues, we are looking at an impending transformation in the way that audiences watch TV, and this should be our focus.

I do find it gratifying that Sky have stepped up and faced the future. Contrary to what you say, Sky have only relatively recently offered on demand (cable companies gave us on demand when they went digital). However, it is good to see that Sky have now embraced this as the unavoidable future, and with startling speed, they appear to have overtaken Virgin Media. Fair play to them for this.

The issue about Netflix taking advertising on board is your fantasy, Harry, which is not only devoid of a source, but flatly contradicted by the CEO of Netflix. However, I guess you are entitled to your view. Netflix is a global player, and when they reach saturation point, they will be making billions from subscriptions alone, so I do not share your view that they will be forced to look for advertising revenue through commercials.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I am not going to go into detail on your previous post OB, the whole post is a massive contradiction, and climb down, from your original premise that linear TV will dead in 10 years - not that you will ever acknowledge that.

Referring briefly to your previous post though, Lets base a hypothetical future prediction from your good self on the fact that nothing in your premise changes. It's 10/20 (delete as applicable) years in the future, linear TV is dead and buried, Sky, VM, BT etc are all finished and there is nothing to be watched live (no sports on TV any more either for the sake of this argument - because, linear is finished). BBC is a subscription based company and every other content/channel owner is an exclusive VOD entity - just give a rough idea of how many VOD companies there will be, how much they will charge for an ad free world - and finally, how will often will the money be collected from the punters.

Just basic figures are fine with me, this does not need to demand much brain time.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Now, I think you have become confused, Harry.

There is no contradiction. I have already explained that linear TV is shorthand for our conventional TV channels, as referred to elsewhere on the internet. However, linear programmes will obviously continue (how else would you view sport, for example?). But instead of tuning into a TV channel as now, you would access it through the streaming system that would be there in its place. I hope that is now clear!!

I have been speculating that our traditional TV channels will be pretty well gone in 20 years, but that the infrastructure should be in place by 10 years' time.

I do not expect Sky, VM and BT to be dead by then at all. Where did you pick that up from? All three are likely to offer on demand streaming services with box sets and original series, it's just the means of delivery will be different.

Whether or not BBC ever becomes subscription only will depend on the government of the day, but the Conservatives appear to be very interested in this, and you can bet your bottom dollar on this being a hot topic when the licence fee comes up for renewal in 10 years' time. If that happens, TV audiences will be able to spend that money on services other than those provided by the BBC, if they choose to do so, and this will introduce those with more modest means to the wonders of video streaming from other service providers.

The other questions you raise, such as how many providers will there be, no-one knows, do they? You don't need to have such precise answers to observe the way things are going. However, I have already sent you a link so that you can see the range of the most popular service providers currently in the US.

We don't yet know, for example, whether our existing terrestrial TV channels will pool their resources to establish one comprehensive streaming site for non Sky UK programmes or whether some/all of them go their separate ways (although personally I suspect there will be one for the BBC, one for Sky and another one for the rest).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

OB, you have massively changed your position, whilst arguing that you haven't. Some of the things you have just presented as "obvious", you in fact did not accept until they were explained to you, patiently, often repeatedly, over the past year and more that this thread has been running.

I have quoted back to you, more than once, the post in which you predicted the demise of linear TV channels in 10 years (10 years from early 2015, that is, so about 8 years and 9 months now).

That you are now trying to draw a distinction between a linear channel and linear programming is laughable, and simply proves how many semantic contortions you are willing to make in order to avoid the simple truth: you were proved comprehensively wrong, within days of this thread opening, and everything that has followed has been a huge exercise in denial and repositioning on your part.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And what about all the really popular programmes? You know, stuff like Britain's Got Talent, Eastenders and Antiques Roadshow.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Or big national events such as royal weddings, the Queen's anniversary, remembrance Sunday, the annual festival of remembrance, Last Night of the Proms.

Are people going to all gather around an iPad Mini to share these?

The minute they're being watched on a TV via an app - and will every TV maker offer all these VOD apps?! - and given they're live events we're back to the very linear broadcasting which the OP first claimed would be a thing of the past.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, of course, these too.

---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

I think the '10 years' was taken from a story that was being carried at the time. I think it will probably take that long for the infrastructure to be in place, and my position is that 20 years is more likely to be the timespan.

I say again, I have always been of the view the live streaming will take over from live broadcasting on our conventional channels, and again, I refer to this in my earlier posts. Look elsewhere on the net and you will find similar references to linear TV when what is meant is 'old fashioned' TV. You really are being pedantic in the extreme to make something of that.

While I completely disagree with your statement that I have 'massively changed' my position (I think you should re-read my first post), there is nothing wrong with modifying one's view to take into account the opinions of others. There is also nothing wrong with explaining your position when someone puts a particular scenario to you, even though this may go beyond what was previously stated. Some of you guys pounce on people who change their views following a debate, chanting 'u-turn', but protesting that they are not listening if they don't agree with you.

Please, let's stop all this bad temper and have a decent exchange of views. I accept that you disagree with me. Let's move on. Time will tell who is right.

If there is genuinely something you want me to explain to you about what I believe on this subject, I am happy to respond, but honestly, all this 'you're changing your position' stuff does not do very much for the credibility of your arguments, and you do have some good points to make, so that is a shame.

One thing is for sure, more and more people are changing the way they view TV in favour of streaming. How far this is likely to go is the big question, and you point to the technical difficulties of sustaining this rate of change. Hopefully, we can at least agree on that much.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

In my first post I commented on how any new service or product would inevitably see initially fast growth but then slow as the market reached its top level - this seems to be happening with Netflix which is predicting slowing subscriber growth:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36078925

On another note, Reed Hastings has himself talked of the need to produce more localised content because many international audiences have no interest in watching shows in English.

That will be a significant increase in its production costs and some markets are unlikely to be profitable because the number of potential subscribers won't ever cover the costs of producing enough local language content needed to draw them in.

This of course is why Netflix doesn’t bother to license the uncut UK versions of Hustle and Spooks - the US versions it offers instead lack up to 8 minutes per episode - because every step it takes to address local market demands pushes its overheads up and reduces profitability.

TV isn’t a one-size fits all business - audiences are incredibly diverse and expect tons of content to cater for their needs, with large numbers wanting local, familiar shows starring actors they know and like.

Subscription revenue alone would never fund Netflix running different localised versions in 100 countries and the appeal of English language, mostly US programming is limited because people overwhelmingly want to watch programmes about their police, their politics and their hospitals and not CSI, House of Cards (US) and ER.

Netflix and Amazon can never produce enough programmes with Bradley Walsh or Sarah Lancashire to satisfy UK audiences and replace UK broadcasters as has been predicted repeatedly.

Worse for them, any such shows they did make would have limited appeal outside the UK which runs counter to their business model of securing global rights for all original commissions/purchases.

These services have a limited market which is why shareholders are looking again at Netflix’s future potential growth and some are cashing in now.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Netflix have said they will only commission a local show if they know it will have global appeal and they do not use geography at all in their analysis or recommendations. http://www.wired.com/2016/03/netflix...conquer-world/ Sky's bigger commissions also seem to be increasingly designed to find an audience in all their European territories.

Amazon's Streaming Partners Programme meanwhile is trying to convince every local streaming service to use its service rather than building their own so they can benefit from a massive existing customer base, billing systems, streaming infrastructure and recommendation engines. I'm increasingly thinking they are going to be the bigger challenge to cable and satellite TV. This is a good piece on what they're doing: http://www.videonuze.com/article/ama...gram-this-year

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Haha you have only recently changed you view on what is classed as linear tv, so please stop spouting other wise. Hence, my reasoning behind the Sky, VM, BT statement.

Yup, you have given the American info. I said it was extremely expensive. Take the American info as a base rate, do you see it being more or less expensive, or will it be a similar price. If it is a similar price or higher, why would people choose to pay more for the same content, when they could just stick with how it is now? Also, if you think it will be less, please explain how. Again, it does not need to be precise, just basic figures are fine by me. Your refusal to give even the most basic of figures, is because you know it will be much more expensive than it is now, and as such, people will not change their habits the way you think.

I notice you now say you expect tradition tv channels will be pretty well gone in 20 years. You used to say, quite vehemently, they would be well and truly dead by then, but you never change your mind do you?

Anyway, gotta head back to work soon, but seeings as we a year in to this discussion, can you provide some info on the latest figures as to how people are consuming their viewing? It has not been discussed much recently and I am genuinely interested as to the most recent trend.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ing-tv-in-2015

From the end of the article

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I've never caught onto streaming TV. It never looks as good quality for one thing. With tv/recordable boxes you can watch whatever you want whenever anyway and bypass the adverts. Price might be the only killer factor for providers like VM.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Thank you, Hugh.

Clearly, conventional channels are safe and doing well in the short term. However, VOD viewing will continue to grow, and this could become very rapid growth within the next decade, with conventional TV channels under strain from decreasing advertising revenues by about five years' time if they do not find alternative revenue streams.

The main commercial channels have already developed their i-players with unskippable ad breaks, and no doubt Sky, Virgin Media and others will ultimately make arrangements to pay for those same players with commercials taken out. Such arrangements will ensure the extended survival of the main channels, but the smaller channels will certainly start feeling the pinch in the foreseeable future unless similar arrangements can be made for them. I would not exclude this possibility, and if it could be made to work, this would address Harry's concerns about access. So those with pay TV would have the commercial free players and those who cannot or will not pay will be able to take the free option with ads.

However, in the longer term, I would expect to see the i-players superceded by Netflix style sites which would offer also extended facilities to access content from previous years.

---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Look at my original post, which makes very clear that I was comparing 'linear channels' with 'streaming services'. It was your mistake to read more into that than was intended.

In terms of the cost of streaming services, I've already answered the question of what I think will happen with Netflix prices. With the monthly cost increasing to £7.50 per month, this still works out cheaper than the licence fee. The competition between the streaming services should ensure that prices remain reasonable and proportionate to the content available.

I still think that conventional channels will be dead in 20 years. However, there are known unknowns :D in terms of decisions yet to be made. For example, if the licence fee is retained, the BBC may wish to use the current system to air its range of channels, if they can afford it. However, if the Conservatives are still in power in 10 years, they may baulk at allowing the BBC to incur these additional costs when there are other cheaper, or more popular, methods of showing programmes available.

Hugh has answered your question on viewing preferences.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Ha, it was my mistake?!? Behave. You have spent the best part of 60 pages defending your "original" post. At no stage have you corrected anyone when we have challenged your assumptions until a few pages ago. I would have thought you would been clearer with your thoughts a long time ago, if you were only thinking of broadcast channels dying. Equally, your argument has changed with alarming frequency since your first post, so your first post has been irrelevant for a very long time.

In response to your first post, you will never get a live show "on demand". If it is live, it is linear, and linear TV will still thrive, linear TV channels will still thrive, bundled tv subscriptions with box sets of on demand content will be very popular, Netflix etc will continue to do well.

Moving on to your drastically changed point, if the bulk viewing of linear TV viewing moves to online streaming (which it may well do) and it is cheaper for businesses to run, then, as you have said, linear TV channels will still be operating. If linear TV channels are still operating, and Sky etc are not dead (which you have said they won't be - I fully agree that they will), they will be able to extend there advertizing online, be able to run cheaper linear TV channels on line and offer a lower price point for customers on can't afford Sky currently, but want more than now tv can offer. As such, they can get more money from on line subscribers, and also advertizers. When this happens, people will still be watching conventional broadcast channels, and will be able to continue to do so, because the extra revenue gained from online profits, will be able to offset some of the potential losses from conventional tv channels. Even you wish to disregard the thought of online subsidizing conventional, if the bulk of viewing linear tv moves online, the viewership will still be the same, and as a result, the ad revenues wont change, thus no need for the channels to die.

Which ever way you wish to skin this particular cat, conventional broadcast will still be around in 20 years. More importantly, your many, many assumptions, which have mutated drastically, are still deeply flawed.

With the regards the cost of Netflix, some weeks ago you said the cheapest Netflix subscription, without the decent content, will be £11. Are you now saying the cheapest price it will be in 20 years is still going to be £7.50?

You clearly don't have a clue on how to answer the question of price so I will let it go.

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

Thanks Hugh, still vast amounts of work VOD before overtakes linear - not that it ever will or has the intention to do so.

As the article say, it is surprising, given the relative affordability and the recent attention cord cutting has had, and the availability of now tv, the number of ways it can be watched, it still is not having much of an effect on conventional viewing.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Harry, black is not white, and I clearly stated 'linear channels' in my original post. Clue: Look closely and digest the second word.

How can it possibly be the case that linear viewing will cease when this is how we watch the news and football, for example? Of course I didn't mean what you are implying. I think, Harry, you are just being argumentative, naughty boy!

Maybe some day you will tell me which of my arguments have changed so much over the course of this thread as I think this must be a figment of your imagination. If you list them, I can put the record straight for you.

In my last post, I was referring to the new price of Netflix that has been announced, not my forecast price, but then you know that. No doubt you have worked out that £11 per month is also cheaper than the licence fee, so I am not sure what point you were trying to make.

Also in your response to Hugh, there is agreement between us that conventional viewing is still going strong. However, this is now. The scenario we are looking at is what will happen in the future.

As to what the price of Netflix will be in 20 years, how the hell would I know? Do you have the projected inflation figures for 20 years into the future?

Didn't think so...

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yup, you did say linear channels (clue: look closely and digest the first word) which broadcast linear TV. the loss one of one, leads to the loss of the other. If myself and others have misinterpreted your thoughts, why on earth have you kept this thread running for so long, why not just explain your thoughts better to us? Boredom? Trolling? Or just wanting to have a chat?

The first argument that changed was the 10 years statement. I am not going to trawl through all the other posts to find others. although you did present three different arguments on how you thought streaming services would be paid for, each time you changed your mind when I gave reasons why they would not be fair for everyone. You also said the BBC should be pay per view, and you changed your mind again, when I challenged you on how expensive it would be to just one show. You no longer seem to think everyone in the country will be able to watch anything they want it in 10 years. You also said all content companies would launch streaming services, and would replace linear channels.

The point I am making about Netflix, is that you have this vision of what the world will look in 20 years (although you have often said you don't know how things will look in 20 years, when questioned a bit deeper on your thoughts) but will not put together basic figures/ideas for scrutiny.

Now seeings as you ignored a large chunk of my previous post, would care to respond to the rest of it - in which I foolishly try to continue this discussion with you on the future linear to channels, rather than respond with a pretty pointless post.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Linear channels is what I said, and I have explained what I meant by that, Harry.

I have also explained that I believe the infrastructure would support the whole UK population being able to stream what they wanted to watch within 10 years, with linear CHANNELS not likely to continue to exist in 20.

Actually, despite what you say, I have tried to answer or comment on the various aspects of your incredibly long posts, but I feel we are going round in circles.

Regarding the BBC, I think it is now clear that the current government wants to abolish the BBC licence fee. My view is as it always has been, that we are likely to change to a subscription based model. The back library will be available on a PPV basis (this is already happening with BBC Store, so I was right about that). It is also possible that the government may allow advertising on the BBC, but if they go down the route of unskippable commercials, there would be an adverse reaction from the population. However, this may be an option that can be applied to viewers who take the decision not to subscribe.

To suggest that I have changed my mind on the premise of the argument is just wrong. I have answered your questions regarding different scenarios but then you incorrectly assume I have accepted your scenario and you say I've changed my mind.

Once again, I think we are just going to have to accept that we are never going to agree about this. Now we will have to wait and see.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Highly unlikely, the biggest "adverse reaction" would be from Sky, ITV, Five and Channel 4 who would not welcome the competition for advertising money.

BBC Store was first announced in October 2013. It needed no special insight for you to predict it in January 2015. Also the Store adds nothing to what's long been available via iTunes, save the BBC branding.

You also said - in your very first post on this thread

which suggests you have never really understood the terms your using - on demand and live streaming are not the same thing.

You can watch last night's EastEnders on demand from the iPlayer but when you're watching something that's happening now or using iPlayer to watch the episode which is also currently being shown on BBC One it's streaming.

Maybe if you stuck to the widely accepted and understood definitions of these two very different words people would find it easier to follow your claim?

One thing you have repeatedly said is that on demand services will make traditional broadcasters' business financially unviable but now you seem to be saying they'll remain but as streamed services?

But if you are, I've already shown you how streaming is MORE expensive than broadcasting via DSAT and DTT for the channel operator where the costs are fixed regardless of how many are watching.

Perhaps the best way forward would be if you typed a single post restating your case, remembering to use on demand and streaming correctly?

Suspect it would help clear a lot of this up. Or at least clarify where you're wrong.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sorry, TV Watcher, but if this thread is confusing you, I don't know what else I can say that will clarify matters for you. The definitions I have used are pretty interchangeable, for example, you can refer to live VOD or live streaming, both of which are linear, just like our conventional broadcast channels. Most resders of this thread don't want to read about the technical terms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Oh I'm not at all confused, I'm quite clear that you have very little you're talking about hence why you repeatedly use 'streaming' and 'on demand' / 'VOD' as if they're inter-changeable terms for the same thing when they're not.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

For the purposes of this thread, they are pretty similar and I don't know why you would want to confuse the debate with unnecessary technical detail.

Is there really anybody out there who does not understand that I am referring to on demand services (as shown on our VM menus) and the video services provided by Amazon, Netflix, etc?

I think just about everyone does, and so this debate over precise technical terms is not helpful, or indeed enjoyable, for non teckies to follow. You are pulling at hairs and ignoring the thrust of the argument. If I have technically used the wrong term, I don't think most people are bothered or would even perceive the difference.

All anyone needs to understand in my argument is my assertion that VOD and streaming services will take over from our conventional broadcast channels.

I think most people have figured that out.