Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I never did say that, Den, and I have reminded you of that more than once.
I said that:
Quote:
1. The number of traditional linear channels would start to decline from about 5 years' time;
That is a fair change from what your original answer was.
No, you were referring to my comment about linear (ie conventional broadcast channels) being 'as dead as a doornail'. That was never my suggestion. I said that these channels were probably safe for about 3 years, but in about 5 years' time they would start decreasing. I said it was quite likely that there would be no such channels in 20 years from now but a small number might survive.
'I still think that conventional channels will be dead in 20 years.'
That was a quote from me on #892 on 29 April 2016 in my original linear channels thread, and even then, some, including you, kept saying that I had predicted this would happen in 10 years, which is simply not true. The 10 years I had previously referred to was the time by which the infrastructure should be ready to support this change. Still, you are trying to confuse these timescales in an effort to discredit the premise I have put forward. However, the evidence is there in those posts, from very early in the thread, that the likelihood was that conventional linear TV channels would not exist in 20 years.
Just in case anyone remains confused, my definitive view is, and always has been that:
1. These traditional linear channels were safe for about three years at least. After about 5 years, some of these linear channels would start to close down as they would no longer be viable.
2. In about 5-10 years' time, the necessary infrastructure should be available over the whole country to enable everyone to be able to access streaming services.
3. By 20 years' time, most of our conventional TV channels would have closed due to the popularity of streaming services, which would render the old system unviable. I also conceded that if there was a seismic shift in the way the linear offering was presented, this could change things, but that I could not envisage what that would be.
I hope my position on this is now clear, if it wasn't before.
Quote:
2. The number of traditional linear channels existing in 20 years' time will be very small or non existent, due to the massively increased use of OTT services, which were easier and more convenient to use.
Quite a big statement and one that is very unlikely to come true.
That remains my view.
Quote:
That was about a year ago, so you can take a year off the 5 years and 20 years predictions.
Like a politician your answer seems to change from day to day.
You will need to justify that! My position has remained unchanged. If you really believe what you are saying, give me a link to prove it. You will not find one, trust me.
Quote:
As it happens, I may have been too pessimistic about the speed of change. Two traditional linear channels have already taken the decision to go on demand only (BBC3 and ITV Encore) so things have started moving in that direction four years earlier than I thought at the time.
Both channels always had small audiences and like channels before new ones launch and a few disappear as that has happened in the history of modern TV if you care to search and look.
You may have forgotten that I said from the start that it would begin with the smaller channels, so what's your point? It's happened even sooner than I thought it would!
Quote:
The posts on here clearly demonstrate a strong trend, both in the US and the UK (as well as Europe) towards OTT services, and yet you continue to bury your head in the sand and tell us this will never happen.
The trend that will lead to the streaming giants winning all the major UK football and sporting rights then?.
They will certainly start bidding soon.
Quote:
I am still waiting for your explanation as to why you do not agree with this prediction, particularly when the TV industry seems to have come around to this point of view also, and the evidence is building up month by month.
If you are able to provide me with an up to date link that supports your view on this matter, I would be very interested to read it
l have answered this one before but you have chosen to ignore viewpoints that don't suit your own views.
Well, if you have, I must have missed it!
---------- Post added at 20:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetman11
There's a few answers to that , who says all those 5 million are football viewers ?
Sky currently pays nearly £1.4 billion a year which would be money it could spend elsewhere.
Who says the winning bidder wouldn't want it's content available across other platforms.
Should this happen it's likely Sky will have already been snapped up by a bigger player even if it's not Fox so I'm pretty sure they'll still be here.
|
Actually, I agree with you, muppetman. If Amazon win the Premier League rights, they will ensure that they are available on as many platforms as possible, to get their money back! This will benefit BT and Talk Talk in particular.
Against that, we also need to bear in mind that the global operators will also be swallowing up studio rights all over the place, and Sky will not be able to compete with that. To survive, they need a new model which will include increasing their original content massively.