Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I have.
The channels that provide third party content that Sky and Virgin deliver costs pennies per subscriber per month absorbed across a huge customer base.
Once that goes the money will come from multiple, smaller subscriber bases paying higher amounts. If you choose to take multiple services (to maintain an equivalent service to now) that’ll easily add up to more than XL TV.
The fact that Sky, BT and Virgin will be the major internet providers regardless, you’ll find them turning to there to drive profits.
To pluck a figure out of fresh air a bundle of channels getting 30p per subscriber per month from Sky/Virgin is looking at a figure of £46.8m per year hard cash. Plus will command advertising revenue.
To make that from a standalone at £5 a month you’d need 800 000 subscribers ignoring all your other costs - VAT, subscriber management, servers, bandwidth. The BARB figures don’t support that the existing third parties are likely to achieve that.
In reality I won’t save many 30 pences, but will be asked to pay multiple £5s (or higher) to maintain my current level of content.
Sky, Virgin and BT will still have shareholders to serve, so expect broadband prices to rise as well to cover their profits.
|
Possibly, take a look here:
https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/ste...om-1202876000/
Pay tv and streaming services have roughly the same amount of subscribers at 15m each in Britain.
What that article shows is that while most of those streaming subscribers also have a pay tv service, a third of them have cancelled their premium pay tv service.
If Sky, BT and VM are allowed to bundle and integrate streamers into their pay tv services, that should offset the losses from the decline of channel bundles and keep costs down - hopefully!