VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[Carth]

A bigger slice of the advertising revenue?

[gunner45]

Originally Posted by jfman

If linear has no future, and the world will be a bland interface of junk apps pushed to you by whatever Chinese tv manufacturers push at you, then whatever you add yourself, why are Sky buying ITV?

Traditional linear TV is in terminal decline, and if the government pushes ahead with the preferred option in its green paper, Freeview will disappear altogether by 2034 (and cable and satellite will go as well as they won't keeping this unsustainable means of distribution going). But linear TV will not die: far from it, we already have scheduled shows which are streamed - like the growing number of Freely and FAST channels - and this is also linear TV because the viewers just choose what channel they want from the EPG. The fact that the underlying IP streaming technology is very different to RF broadcasting is for nerds to debate but a mere implementation detail for the viewers. The key takeaway is that watching live TV will remain hugely popular regardless of how shows are distributed (with huge ad revenues as well).

So, why does Sky want ITV? Answer: Sky would get ITV's mass‑audience live events (and thus ad revenue) even though linear TV is declining and, even better, ITVX which is is the UK's largest free streaming service, with well over 16 million monthly active users. With ITVX Sky becomes the biggest advertising media player in the UK with an estimated 70% share of all broadcaster-sold TV advertising revenue in the UK.

[TimeLord2018]

NBC Universal (including Sky) is being spun off by Comcast
https://www.advanced-television.com/...ch-businesses/


Sky buying ITV is going to have a prolonged regulatory process (CMA, Ofcom and Culture Secretary) i suspect.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

If linear has no future, and the world will be a bland interface of junk apps pushed to you by whatever Chinese tv manufacturers push at you, then whatever you add yourself, why are Sky buying ITV?

In short, I'd say to either kill Freeview and Freely in the long term, or, jump into bed with them. There is no way that Sky Stream, Now, Freeview/Freely and ITVX all survive ten years from now.

With ad revenues being gobbled up by the likes of youtube and global streamers ruling the "waves", as far as drama goes, it does seem a slghtly odd move. But hey, it's a competitor taken out for a relatively small sum, so Sky might be cracking open the bubbly stuff right now.

And on the blank interface point, I give the answer I gave on this site several years ago on that. The current streaming interfaces are just a stepping stone to what I call true intelligent tv. And what will it look like? Well, in many ways what it looked like decades ago with there being perhaps 5-6 main "channels" showing a linear schedule, which can then be exited at whim to watch anything you want. And probably the tv will know what you want to watch next before you do.

[TimeLord2018]

The plan seems to be migrate ITVX to NBC Universal technology platform when means they can merge ITVX and Now with Free and Pay options if they wish.

ITVX is already one of the UK’s leading streaming services, bringing great British programmes to millions of viewers. If approved, we’ll build on that success by bringing proven streaming technology, developed for millions of viewers across multiple international markets, to support the continued evolution of ITVX.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by TimeLord2018

The plan seems to be migrate ITVX to NBC Universal technology platform when means they can merge ITVX and Now with Free and Pay options if they wish.

No doubt they will use Sky's tech, so where does that leave Freeview/Freely?

[TimeLord2018]

I was specifically referring to their apps, Now app moved to NBC Universal technology platform over a year ago.

I doubt Freely is going anywhere it's basically Freeview and Freesat long term replacement.

[Horizon]

It was Comcast's tech, I seem to recall and NowTV sent a team over to the States to integrate in with them, or something like that.

Edit: Comcast and Charter tech.

You can even get Now on Comcast's cable service these days:

https://www.xfinity.com/nowtv

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Anything that puts costs onto the BBC is immediately one that is taxpayer subsidised. Similarly, project gigabit is subsidising internet rollout, and question 18 leaves open the question of subsidised internet connections.

The taxpayer is very much going to be on the hook for the cost of this for no net benefit. Everyone - even OB now agrees - that linear television lives on in an IP world.

Well done in keeping the myth of what I believe alive. Conventional TV channels will disappear, whatever you say and you know full well you are just trolling.

As for the BBC, your comment is only true while the existing financial model survives.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well done in keeping the myth of what I believe alive. Conventional TV channels will disappear, whatever you say and you know full well you are just trolling.

As for the BBC, your comment is only true while the existing financial model survives.

By conventional do you mean DTT or linear?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

If linear has no future, and the world will be a bland interface of junk apps pushed to you by whatever Chinese tv manufacturers push at you, then whatever you add yourself, why are Sky buying ITV?

Originally Posted by jfman

By conventional do you mean DTT or linear?

As you well know, I’m referring to BBC1,2,3,4, ITV1,2,3,4, Channel 4, etc, NOT the FAST channels, which are of course linear. DTT is not the best description, because Ism also talking about the satellite and cable channels.

---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 ----------

Originally Posted by TimeLord2018

I was specifically referring to their apps, Now app moved to NBC Universal technology platform over a year ago.

I doubt Freely is going anywhere it's basically Freeview and Freesat long term replacement.

I agree that Freely should survive, given that it also carries the apps.

[jfman]

Both Sky and Virgin are pushing IP as their delivery method for set top boxes indistinguishable from their DVB-C and DVB-S counterparts. At what point does it cease to be “conventional”?

Originally Posted by Horizon

No doubt they will use Sky's tech, so where does that leave Freeview/Freely?

These services exist in order to reinforce the UK’s principle of free-to-air public service broadcasting. Non-PSB broadcasters hop on to Freeview and, increasingly, Freely, because it is in their commercial interest to do so. But their actual reason to exist is the ensure the BBCs channels, plus the three commercial PSBs, (plus S4C in Wales and BBC Alba in Scotland), have prominent, near-universal carriage across the UK.

ITV’s sale makes no difference to these platforms whatsoever. Indeed, if Comcast/Sky were to relinquish ITV’s public service licence, all that would happen is that ITV would lose channel 3 status and Ofcom would launch a new auction for a broadcaster wanting to a PSB licence with the privileges and obligations that come with it.

I don’t think they will want to relinquish the PSB licence though. Aside from soaps, police procedurals and reality/gameshows, ITV is good for nothing and is a pale shadow of what it was achieving when it was constituted of regional networks back in the mid/later 20th century. Losing the high spot in the TV guides where it can pick up casual viewers and opportunities to promote the niche stuff it shows on its 2 3 and 4 channels would be a disaster.

ITVs 2-4, however, I could absolutely see disappearing behind a paywall of one sort or another. There are people stupid enough to pay to watch Love Island. I live with a couple of them.

[gunner45]

Originally Posted by Chris

These services exist in order to reinforce the UK’s principle of free-to-air public service broadcasting. Non-PSB broadcasters hop on to Freeview and, increasingly, Freely, because it is in their commercial interest to do so. But their actual reason to exist is the ensure the BBCs channels, plus the three commercial PSBs, (plus S4C in Wales and BBC Alba in Scotland), have prominent, near-universal carriage across the UK.

ITV’s sale makes no difference to these platforms whatsoever. Indeed, if Comcast/Sky were to relinquish ITV’s public service licence, all that would happen is that ITV would lose channel 3 status and Ofcom would launch a new auction for a broadcaster wanting to a PSB licence with the privileges and obligations that come with it.

I don’t think they will want to relinquish the PSB licence though. Aside from soaps, police procedurals and reality/gameshows, ITV is good for nothing and is a pale shadow of what it was achieving when it was constituted of regional networks back in the mid/later 20th century. Losing the high spot in the TV guides where it can pick up casual viewers and opportunities to promote the niche stuff it shows on its 2 3 and 4 channels would be a disaster.

ITVs 2-4, however, I could absolutely see disappearing behind a paywall of one sort or another. There are people stupid enough to pay to watch Love Island. I live with a couple of them.

There's a lot that's right about your post but you hugely underestimate ITV's broadcast and streaming businesses, namely it makes a lot of money from 'low-brow' mass productions and ITVX's 16.5 million monthly active users. And this 'low-brow' stuff is exactly what Sky wants so much as the biggest hole in its armoury is the mass-market free-to-air - a hole it will plug with the acquisition of ITV.

Originally Posted by gunner45

There's a lot that's right about your post but you hugely underestimate ITV's broadcast and streaming businesses, namely it makes a lot of money from 'low-brow' mass productions and ITVX's 16.5 million monthly active users. And this 'low-brow' stuff is exactly what Sky wants so much as the biggest hole in its armoury is the mass-market free-to-air - a hole it will plug with the acquisition of ITV.

Oh, I know they’re successful. They produce highly successful crap, but then so did Gerald Ratner, until he was stupid enough to tell everyone that’s what he was doing.

I quite understand why Comcast thinks it’s a good fit, but the point you make also underlines, in part, why I think they won’t relinquish ITV1’s PSB licence. Anyone can make crap, crap is a commodity item and the only way you can sell a commodity is to have it under your customer’s nose so your customer picks up your crap and not the next guy’s. Because (Bristol Scale notwithstanding) crap is crap is crap. Without the PSB licence and the channel 3 slot they become just another purveyor of crap somewhere in the arse-end of the EPG.