Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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).
|
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.