[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are creating arguments out of points I have not made. As usual.

For starters, you need to pay more attention to what is actually happening before you respond to these things.

Have DAZN not trebled their price in Italy?

The new approach, as you don’t need me to remind you, is the ‘direct to consumer’ approach,

Make your mind up OB. One day it’s direct to consumer, the next it’s content aggregators.

Now although linear channels are available on Pluto TV,

The plucky upstart defying the trend.

I cannot see the linear channels continuing to appear on Now (TV) when Sky finally launch their streamer (Peacock), although they may continue the practice until the satellite part of their business continues. The I-Player is unlikely to change until all terrestrial is transferred to IPTV.

2035?

Of course viewers will not pay twice for the same content. So if, for example, Virgin decided to offer a choice of streamer bundles and terrestrial TV, and it is almost certain that this will be the case, we would no longer be paying for pay-tv channels because they would no longer be offered. There would be no point in doing so, would there?

Why would they no longer be offered by anyone?

You claimed that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. When I questioned you on that your response was that UHD was not available to those not on the internet or who suffered low speeds. But that does not address the point that the streamers offer so much more UHD and no SD, making your assertion completely wrong. I might as well respond to your point by saying that Freeview channels were not available to people without electricity. Clear, unambiguous nonsense.

The number of people without the internet - and fast internet - is clearly far greater those without electricity. Yet you have the cheek, despite all of your inconsistencies, to accuse anyone else of spouting nonsense.

As for your ‘cost of maintaining linear TV’ argument is concerned, again, it is the wrong argument.

Incorrect Old Boy. It’s precisely the right argument - your inability to offer a response of any meaningful consequence obviously means you’d prefer to debate something else. That’s understandable. But it doesn’t change the fact that the financial viability of linear television will continue long past your arbitrary end date plucked from thin air.