Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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?
|
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.
