VOD : Are the OTT providers the biggest threat ?

[muppetman11]

Are the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime now the biggest challenge to the traditional pay TV providers like VM , Sky and BT ?

[rhyds]

In the movies and premier TV series market they will be offering stiff competiton, but sports will still command strong loyalty towards traditional PayTV.

Also, you must remember that all 3 pay TV suppliers you mention offer triple/quad play deals, meaning that they will still be paid for internet access in many cases.

[denphone]

l think there is a place for them all in the marketplace so don't really see them as a huge threat personally.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

l think there is a place for them all in the marketplace so don't really see them as a huge threat personally.

I agree that they are not a threat to the likes of VM, who are already embracing Netflix and have registered interest in showing carrying Amazon Prime.

However, as discussed elsewhere, I do think they are a threat to our linear TV channels. These are likely to become unsustainable when advertising is no longer bringing in the readies, due to viewers seeking alternative ways of watching the telly.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by rhyds

In the movies and premier TV series market they will be offering stiff competiton, but sports will still command strong loyalty towards traditional PayTV.

Also, you must remember that all 3 pay TV suppliers you mention offer triple/quad play deals, meaning that they will still be paid for internet access in many cases.

Some good points , probably part of the reason BT and Sky bid so aggressively.

I agree if your getting your BB and phone from one company its as easy to tag on your TV service. I'm not sure how sustainable the current pay TV package system of 100' s of channels is for some though with such fierce competition and low cost alternatives.

[passingbat]

For people who are not interested in sport, yes they are.

You did forget an important one though; Now TV. It gives access to many shows/channels that are only available via a pay TV subscription.

Netflix and Amazon are becoming more than just a source of previous seasons shows by making their own content and taking first run rights for several current US shows that would have ended up on a pay TV channel. A few examples are Vikings, Black Sails and Better Call Saul.

They are not a threat to Freeview channels; that system will work as it is for a long time yet. It is a threat for the pay TV customers who are not interested in sport. For us, basic Freeview plus streaming services work great.

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

Thinking about it, sports rights holders have become the Luddites in this new TV world.

Pressure needs to be put on them to correct this. BT make their sports available on line I believe, but to access all Sky sports on line via Now TV would mean a house re-mortgage!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

For people who are not interested in sport, yes they are.

You did forget an important one though; Now TV. It gives access to many shows/channels that are only available via a pay TV subscription.

Netflix and Amazon are becoming more than just a source of previous seasons shows by making their own content and taking first run rights for several current US shows that would have ended up on a pay TV channel. A few examples are Vikings, Black Sails and Better Call Saul.

They are not a threat to Freeview channels; that system will work as it is for a long time yet. It is a threat for the pay TV customers who are not interested in sport. For us, basic Freeview plus streaming services work great.



---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

Thinking about it, sports rights holders have become the Luddites in this new TV world.

Pressure needs to be put on them to correct this. BT make their sports available on line I believe, but to access all Sky sports on line via Now TV would mean a house re-mortgage!

Freeview channels are also under threat, of course. Even Freeview only viewers will soon be able to access their programmes through on demand (and many can already do so through recordings) which will diminish substantially the income that will be available from advertising.

The BBC does not rely on advertising of course, but the TV licence is under review and could be slashed or eliminated altogether.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Freeview channels are also under threat, of course. Even Freeview only viewers will soon be able to access their programmes through on demand (and many can already do so through recordings) which will diminish substantially the income that will be available from advertising.

The BBC does not rely on advertising of course, but the TV licence is under review and could be slashed or eliminated altogether.

Under threat in Freeview terms means OTA broadcasts diminishing, not alternative ways of accessing free content.


OTA broadcasts are not diminishing any time soon.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Under threat in Freeview terms means OTA broadcasts diminishing, not alternative ways of accessing free content.


OTA broadcasts are not diminishing any time soon.

It's only 'free' because it is funded by advertising or the licence fee. This is why I think that broadcast channels cannot survive in the long term.

The costs of running a channel as opposed to uploading programmes onto on demand or having them streamed must be considerable. And it is more convenient for the consumer.

The increasing access to technology and growing viewer confidence in using it, together with diminishing income from advertising and the licence fee will seal the fate of the broadcast channels in time.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

in time.

What time span are you going for this time

Sometimes you go for ten years, other times twenty

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by passingbat

For people who are not interested in sport, yes they are.

You did forget an important one though; Now TV. It gives access to many shows/channels that are only available via a pay TV subscription.

Netflix and Amazon are becoming more than just a source of previous seasons shows by making their own content and taking first run rights for several current US shows that would have ended up on a pay TV channel. A few examples are Vikings, Black Sails and Better Call Saul.

They are not a threat to Freeview channels; that system will work as it is for a long time yet. It is a threat for the pay TV customers who are not interested in sport. For us, basic Freeview plus streaming services work great.

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

Thinking about it, sports rights holders have become the Luddites in this new TV world.

Pressure needs to be put on them to correct this. BT make their sports available on line I believe, but to access all Sky sports on line via Now TV would mean a house re-mortgage!

BT Online player is only available if you have BT Broadband whilst its a good offer it restricts you to staying with BT for your broadband.

Now TV day pass is currently £6.99 and streamable on two devices simultaneously and offers all Sky Sports channels , they also have a weekly ticket at £10.99. Personally I don't think the day pass is bad value for the occasional sports watcher.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

BT Online player is only available if you have BT Broadband whilst its a good offer it restricts you to staying with BT for your broadband.

True which makes BT sport inaccessible to many without a pay TV subscription. Not good.

=muppetman11;35760053Now TV day pass is currently £6.99 and streamable on two devices simultaneously and offers all Sky Sports channels , they also have a weekly ticket at £10.99. Personally I don't think the day pass is bad value for the occasional sports watcher.

So how does £44/pm via Now TV compare with the cost when adding it to a pay TV subscription? Not very well I suspect.

[muppetman11]

Nobody makes entry level into sport cheap wonder why

If you could pay £24.50 for Sky Sports the current monthly price on Sky (SD) via Now TV how many sports fans would drop their satellite TV service.

I agree with what your saying but right or wrong that's how it is , the huge sums paid this time don't look like that will change either.

Now TV sports passes are aimed at the occasional sports watcher.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Nobody makes entry level into sport cheap wonder why

If you could pay £24.50 for Sky Sports the current monthly price on Sky (SD) via Now TV how many sports fans would drop their satellite TV service.

I agree with what your saying but right or wrong that's how it is , the huge sums paid this time don't look like that will change either.

Now TV sports passes are aimed at the occasional sports watcher.

Which means Cord Cutting for sports fans is not really an option. Pay TV providers know that, so it aint likely to change anytime soon.

Maybe they should be 'encouraged' to change, the way the music industry was? They won't change themselves as the current situation is too monetarily cosy for them.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The costs of running a channel as opposed to uploading programmes onto on demand or having them streamed must be considerable.

All this time, and it turns out you actually don't know ...

Costs are, of course, entirely relative. It may cost more to broadcast your content across the airwaves where any one of 35 million households can find it simply by switching their TV on (as opposed to just hiding it on a server somewhere until someone comes looking), but the trade-off is that vast numbers of casual viewers result in an attractive prospect for advertisers. The net cost is therefore not nearly so high.

And it is more convenient for the consumer.

It is more convenient for you, and other consumers who share your pattern of TV usage. It is not more convenient for "the" consumer, which is an all-encompassing term which would include myself, and the many other people who have spent the past several weeks patiently and repeatedly explaining to you that we don't want to pay for a streaming service, we don't mind TV adverts, and that a curated, linear TV schedule is actually, for millions of people, the most convenient means of accessing casual entertainment after a hard day at work.

The increasing access to technology and growing viewer confidence in using it, together with diminishing income from advertising and the licence fee will seal the fate of the broadcast channels in time.

it really won't. Not in my lifetime. But we've been here before.