[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You misunderstand my understanding, ol’ chap.

If we are talking about sport, I have acknowledged already that access to these events is too costly, but it’s not exactly cheap on Sky either. However, I think prices will come down as the markets consolidate.

As far as general entertainment goes, it has become much cheaper than to subscribe to Sky’s multi- channel packages and the choice is much greater, particularly when you factor in the ability to change streamers as often as every month.

So the choice is only greater (and cheaper) if you chop and change what products you have at a given time meaning you will have a reduced choice at any given time and instead by restricted to that one (or two) services taken at a given time.

It’s difficult to argue that represents better value if you have to reduce your convenience (or arrange your viewing by month depending on what you subscribe to).

The streamers are now talking to each other about consolidating or bundling different streamers to provide better choices at less cost for the consumer. The same will happen in the sports arena over time, probably sooner rather than later.

That’s a roundabout way of saying “the streamers” are discussing their failing business models. They know, as well as the rest of this forum, there isn’t an appetite except (bizarrely) from you for the ever increasing fragmentation of the pay-tv market. “The streamers” can only dream of the economies of scale of traditional pay-tv platforms and jettisoning their failed business models are the first step towards changing that. However, there’s no evidence that it will increase choice (or reduce costs) to consumers in the marketplace.

Nonsense, jfman. The Beeb is already well on the way in their planning for the replacement of their TV channels

Source?

within a decade in favour of a streamer for example, and it is most likely that our existing broadcast system will be turned off in 2035. You’re just ignoring the facts to prolong your wet dream that the channels are here to stay forever. I’m afraid you are going to have to content yourself with a miriad of inferior FAST channels to feast on in the future.

I have to content myself with no such thing, OB. As a pay-tv subscriber with a traditional service and multiple (including international) streaming services my choices will be catered for regardless of outcome. Like a rational consumer in the marketplace I’ll go with the best products regardless of technology.

I’m not sitting there like a Scooby Doo villain with a spreadsheet thinking “aha! If I take Netflix and Discovery Plus in month one, Prime and Apple TV in month two… etc, keep Now TV for Sky Movies throughout I’ll be 100% streaming, pay more, have less convenience but I’ll prove those pesky kids on CF wrong!”

I’m completely agnostic as to what happens in the future. It’s your confusion, and dare I say deranged obsession, that keeps these threads going.

That depends how they bundle it. As you know, bundling channels means more choice for less expenditure, which is how the multi-channel system on Sky works. Unfortunately, this system is falling apart due to the fact that so many programmes are going straight to the streamers, leaving the channels floundering to put anything decent on.

I don’t know what TV you watch OB but there’s plenty of choice on Sky. The only thing floundering is the revenue levels of the “streamers” hence their desperation to change the business model.

The streamer bundles will have plenty of choice with decent material. I dare say there will be the option to take just one streamer, or alternatively, the whole caboosh for a lower price than subscribing individually. We will have to see how that pans out.

Hopefully, there will also be subscriptions with ads options for those who cannot fork out too much on this or who simply don’t want to.

it’ll be the premium subscriptions with unskippable ads before you know it. It’ll all one big rug pull but just you keep deluding yourself as you did with “no ads”, “low cost”, etc.