VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by gunner45

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.

I think that the reason that ITV approached Sky was because they realised that ad revenue from TV was also in terminal decline and wanted to get out whilst their channels were still profitable.

The benefits to Sky are that they can circumvent this decline by cutting costs through ending duplication, economies of scale etc and have multiple new opportunities to push their pay TV business.

[Horizon]

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.

I don't see the PSB licence being handed back, but Sky has always hated any platform other than their own and I question their commitment to Freeview/Freely. No mention was made of these by the Sky boss yesterday in interviews. I thought that omission was interesting.

With the government targeting the likes of Youtube and wanting PSB prominence on there, if that happens and we start seeing PSBs pop up on other American platforms, that I reckon could kill Freeview/Freely.

I think this move by Sky is two fold: to kill off a competitor and kill off a competiting platform, but the PSB bits give Sky some adavantages that they don't currently have.

Sky's boss spoke a lot about sport yesterday and the protected sports rights that Sky can't access, until now. She was also very keen on the massive audiences that the World Cup was giving ITV, so I reckon Sky will use ITV as a lever to try and persuade as many people as possible to pay for Sky's services while keeping the ITV's services free, at least until 2034.

On ITV's shows, I agree they are a shadow of what they used to be and some pundits were saying yesterday that the separate ITV Studios arm that Sky won't get could be gobbled up by the new Banjay/All3media production giant or even someone like Netflix.

[TimeLord2018]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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 ----------



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

Latest forecast is Freely to reach 10.5 million households by 2034,
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...oogle_vignette

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by TimeLord2018

Latest forecast is Freely to reach 10.5 million households by 2034,
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...oogle_vignette

It would have to reach 99.9% of households before freeview could be dropped.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

The ‘terrestrial’ streamers can also be designated as PSB broadcasters, and their presence on home pages are generally at the top of the list as a requirement of Ofcom.

---------- Post added at 16:57 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

It would have to reach 99.9% of households before freeview could be dropped.

Ideally, but of course the article does say (as I have mentioned before):

The Public Service Broadcasters’ (PSBs) currently support a transition to IPTV in the mid-2030s as it will become increasingly challenging for them to bear double costs from running multiple distribution platforms.

In the end, it’s the cost of running two systems that will determine the outcome. Homes without the ability to access the internet in the conventional way will be able to get it via satellite.

I would also make the point that 98.5% of homes currently cannot receive DTT signals. 100% or 99.9% coverage as you suggest is highly desirable, but it’s not essential.

The other thing to consider is the internet refuseniks. For some, that’s their choice. Others are impoverished, and if the government wants to do something about that, all they have to do is give them a benefit that enables them to receive basic broadband. But that’s an expense the government will struggle to afford.

I would also make the point that 98.5% of homes currently cannot receive DTT signals

Typo?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Typo?

It's to kill the bugs in the programming