[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I said ‘if’. In any case, how can I possibly prove to you what has not yet happened? I can’t link to the future, and even if I could, you’d find some obscure or silly reason to rubbish it. May I remind you that we are talking about a prediction relating to future developments here. It’s already half way to coming a reality and we’ve not even reached 50% of the way through the period yet.

Yes OB, I'm fully aware we are still 11 years away from your being proven wrong definitively however many of your assumptions have proven to be incorrect in the interim.

No adverts, undoubtedly appealing to anyone who watches television, has been debunked. Quick movement of "streamers" into the top tier of sports rights has not came to pass.

You are clearly not grasping this argument. You seem to think that the TV channels will continue right up until the last person has stopped watching them. This is a curious and unrealistic stance for you to take. Firstly, there would come a tipping point when it was no longer worth the time and money to spend on ‘linear’ channels, and secondly, the transmitters and satellite transponders are unlikely to continue to be available by 2035. I cannot see any reason for the ‘linear’ channels continuing via IPTV due to diminishing content and the better choice that on demand viewing offers. In the end, it’s the broadcasters’ decision, not the audience’s, and that decision will be forced by diminishing advertising revenues.

A lovely straw man argument against a point nobody has actually made on the forum. Nobody, anywhere, has claimed linear would continue until the last viewer.

Nor would a content owner have additional rights costs in broadcasting both.

My dear chap, I cannot evidence the future as you request, and you can’t prove your view that ‘linear’ channels and streaming will continue to exist side by side.

I can watch it on Peacock. I'm unsure why profit seeking, rational, companies would develop and offer such a product if it were truly as straightforward as your simplistic analysis claims.

In my view, the change to streaming only will come when the existing contracts for the use of transmitters and transponders ends. Your insistence that broadcasters would use two different methods of content provision when one would do, is bonkers. Successful businesses survive by keeping costs low and maximising income.

In what way does maximising income mean closing existing revenue streams?

Ever heard of advertising and reviews? Come on, jfman, use your imagination.

I'll leave imaginary futures as your area of expertise.

Yes, by the looks of it (as explained previously).

You could have fooled me! Your responses to any suggestion that your precious TV channels will be lost convey just a little hysteria.

Once again you needlessly personalise your rebuttals in complete ignorance of my viewing habits and giving disproportionate weight to those which you imagined.

I have considered the alternative of which you speak, but I’ve ruled it out for all the reasons I've given.

None of my predictions have ‘unravelled’ although FAST channels are now in the mix, and I acknowledge that these will continue. The streamers continue to provide ‘no ads’ options and it was the Netflix CEO who said there would never be any advertisements on Netflix.

As for the Premier League, the point I have been making is that the global streamers could blow Sky out of the water if they wished to, because simply they have more resources, and that is undeniable. They have not yet chosen to do so, but sports streaming is becoming more prevalent now, as I am sure you will acknowledge.

I'd be more concerned that rational capitalists exit the market unable to bid the fair market price.