According to this report, linear TV is likely to survive the short to medium term but 'longer-term, it will essentially be compulsory for DTH and other pay-TV platforms to offer OTT as a supplementary service, to both increase retention amongst existing subscribers, and signing up new subs based on exclusive content, and effectively becoming a ‘one-stop-shop’ for content as much as feasibly possible'.
This appears to correspond with Liberty Global's view of the future.
I still think that this report understates the speed and extent of the changes that will come, and one only needs to look at what is happening in America to get a glimpse of how things will be going here within the next three to five years.
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/...ikely-outcome/
Extracts
Linear satellite TV is likely to hold its own for the next few years despite the growing strength of OTT. However, in the long-term it will have to make changes.
Quoting the findings of a report by NSR entitled Linear TV via Satellite: DTH, OTT & IPTV, Satnews reports that the linear satellite TV market will see an increase of over 21,000 channels across both DTH and video distribution platforms by 2024. Indeed, the proliferation of Ultra HD, HD and SD channels, along with a limited impact from OTT platforms, will allow for this growth.
Commenting on the findings, Alan Crisp, Analyst with NSR and lead author of the report, said: “Although OTT platforms have become increasingly mature in North America, elsewhere the development of OTT platforms is in its infancy and is expected to have limited impact on traditional video platforms in the short to medium term”.
Crisp added: “Nevertheless, longer-term, it will essentially be compulsory for DTH and other pay-TV platforms to offer OTT as a supplementary service, to both increase retention amongst existing subscribers, and signing up new subs based on exclusive content, and effectively becoming a ‘one-stop-shop’ for content as much as feasibly possible”.
---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------
Given the range of material available on both Netflix and Amazon, both of which are available for £5.99 per month, I struggle to understand why you think it would be so expensive to have a good range of programmes, Harry.
To be honest, most of the best programmes are on terrestrial TV at the moment, and many of them quickly migrate to Netflix or Amazon.
When you look at the price of the existing pay TV packages, there aren't an awful lot of programmes in there which compete effectively with terrestrial, are there?
When I review my recordings, I am surprised at how few have emanated from Sky or Fox (Sky Movies being the exception). There are some programmes on those channels that we do watch, such as The Walking Dead, but they are so few, it makes me wonder about the value for money we are getting.