[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Doesn't Sky already offer Netflix, fully integrated into their system? I think some contributors are arguing that something cannot happen when it already has.

Just to be clear, the incentive to be on as many platforms as possible is to be more visible and to encourage more people to subscribe to the service. Streamers may or may not accept discounts for those services that can attract more customers than they might otherwise have had. Some may only be prepared to offer introductory deals.

I'm not sure how you make out that acquiring more customers equates to having less revenue. Could you explain what you mean, please?-

Gladly.

In your “content aggregator” hypothesis you propose that streamers should be made available on platforms such as Sky/Virgin.

Such wholesale deals need to be finely balanced - a customer who leaves your service as a direct subscriber to become an indirect subscriber via a wholesale arrangement means less revenue for you.

E.g. a BT Sport subscriber who joins Virgin to get BT Sports reflects a substantial revenue drop compared to a direct BT subscriber. This needs to be finely balanced.

'Pennies per month'? Where did that come from?

Sky’s own accounts. And Virgin’s.

Both have in the past included what their expenses are to third party content providers. That amount, averaged over the subscriber base and the number of third parties, leads to the obvious conclusion that they are only paying pennies per month.

Indeed, if one casts our minds back to the Sky Basics dispute this was over Sky wanting something in the region of 90 pence per subscriber per month for the most popular channels on pay television.

If you think there’s a magical pot of money out there where Sky/Virgin are in a position to pay every fledgeling streaming service pounds per month then you are very well mistaken. If that money comes from anywhere it will be the end user.

It is quite possible that there will be no discount for some streamers - others, like Apple +, Britbox and Acorn may be prepared to do so to access many more customers that they otherwise would have.

I’d contest that it’s not only possible but extremely likely. This content isn’t new or magical, it’s simply television distributed across another means. There’s no incentive for Sky/Virgin to encourage further dilution of their own content by propping up all of these streamers.

As an interim stage in a transition away from TV channels, I would envisage a completely revised offering including Netflix, Prime, Discovery +, Disney + and Now (or Peacock if we get that in this country later on), together with the Freeview channels on an EPG. There could be slimmer packages for those wishing to pay less. The pay tv channels would disappear.

This would be as affordable as what we are paying now for the maximum package, there or thereabouts. For those of us with a multitude of streamers already, it would be cheaper.

Would it be affordable or cheaper than traditional pay-tv services? Who is getting squeezed because all of their direct to customer offerings are significantly more expensive than people are paying for their TV package to Sky or Virgin.