Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Of course there’s a reason.
Why would say, BBC, ITV, Channel 4 who are planning a “Netflix rival” allow the cable operator to store five years worth of content?
Of course they could slap a high price on it, however given the “price rises” thread would the customer base pay more for it? Unlikely.
Similarly Sky and BT, who would struggle to offer a comparable service without impacting broadband speeds, would have no real incentive to make their content available.
|
Or you could look at it another way. Why not accept a VM deal to pay for their customers to access that content rather than allow them to record it for free?
Given that people will record programmes anyway, and provided you can only record (or should I say 'bookmark') the programmes from the EPG, I don't think that such an arrangement would affect audience figures for programmes repeated at a later date or uploaded to a streaming service. It's just a different way of recording, after all.
---------- Post added at 09:49 ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
So there’s no incentive that you can quantify for the content providers I listed to allow Virgin to offer this service?
Sky and BT couldn’t easily replicate this kind of service on their platforms having significant impact on their non-fibre domestic internet speeds. They’d need to migrate everyone to fibre first.
|
There is. Instead of allowing people to record for free, charge Virgin to make the facility available. That is part of the monetisation you were referring to earlier.