VOD : Streaming services news, offers and general chit chat

[SnoopZ]

Streaming services such as Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Prime Video, YouTube, and others, have surpassed traditional cable TV for the first time in July 2022.

https://www.neowin.net/news/tv-viewe...-in-july-2022/

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

I've finally gone legit with Disney Plus for 3 months using £6 of Tesco Vouchers, so FREE.

The offer runs out 22/08 if anyone is interested.

I did this so I could watch Mayans M C Season 4 but it turns out Disney UK don't have this yet so it's back to Piracy with CinemaHD!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

This comment is not only incoherent it’s entirely contradictory.
.

I get that you don’t agree with it, but to claim that you don’t actually understand such a straight forward statement is a little worrying. Unless you’re on the booze already…I suppose it is Friday!

---------- Post added at 17:22 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Given the billions that sports TV rights go for and the millions of subscribers that it’s a major reason for them subscribing to any pay-tv service that’s quite a glaring hole in your point.

It’s not a hole in my argument, jfman, it is a recognition that sports streaming has a way to go yet. My comments are about non-sports viewers, of whom there are plenty.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I get that you don’t agree with it, but to claim that you don’t actually understand such a straight forward statement is a little worrying. Unless you’re on the booze already…I suppose it is Friday!

OB I’m starting to worry about your increasingly deranged input into the forum. Whether I watch junk or otherwise (or television at all!) is irrelevant to the quantity of content available from either streamers or channels.

It’s not a hole in my argument, jfman, it is a recognition that sports streaming has a way to go yet. My comments are about non-sports viewers, of whom there are plenty.

It’s an irrelevant distinction. Everyone is paying more and getting less.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

OB I’m starting to worry about your increasingly deranged input into the forum. Whether I watch junk or otherwise (or television at all!) is irrelevant to the quantity of content available from either streamers or channels.

Ah, you were talking about quantity! I was talking about quality viewing.

It’s an irrelevant distinction. Everyone is paying more and getting less.

Well, I'm certainly not getting less - how does your statement make any sense? All those originals on Netflix, Amazon and Apple+ must mean there are more programmes available. I accept that on some streamers, those programmes would have gone straight to TV channels.

We are paying more because we are currently in transition. The costs will go down once we lose the pay-TV channels. And as I said before, unlike the TV channels, you won't be subscribing to all that junk that fills the schedules of the channels you don't watch. You can refine your choice of streamers to reflect the range of programming you actually want to see.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ah, you were talking about quantity! I was talking about quality viewing.

Well, I'm certainly not getting less - how does your statement make any sense? All those originals on Netflix, Amazon and Apple+ must mean there are more programmes available. I accept that on some streamers, those programmes would have gone straight to TV channels.

So paying more?

We are paying more

Agreed

because we are currently in transition. The costs will go down once we lose the pay-TV channels.

almost all of this content… is on streaming services. So where are the cost savings?

And as I said before, unlike the TV channels, you won't be subscribing to all that junk that fills the schedules of the channels you don't watch.

Indeed, you’ll just get the junk on the streamers you choose to subscribe to along with the decreased choice the future brings.

You can refine your choice of streamers to reflect the range of programming you actually want to see.

And thus less choice.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

you won't be subscribing to all that junk that fills the schedules of the channels you don't watch.

Are you kidding? Have you actually browsed the catalogue of any streaming service? They are all absolutely rammed with crap, purely to create the illusion of choice. Netflix has to pay the content creator for every piece of straight-to-video gash it loads onto its platform, much of which most of its subscribers will never watch. A portion of your subscription pays for it nonetheless. Amazon Prime Video is the same. Apple appears less afflicted in this regard and is more willing to allow its menu to look sparse, but that comes with the risk of creating the impression there’s “nothing to watch” and losing subs. Apple perhaps thinks its brand and the ability to bundle its other services will mitigate that.

Nonetheless the illusion of all-you-can-eat TV on tap requires generous quantities of rubbish in a streamer’s catalogue just as it does in a broadcast TV schedule.

[RichardCoulter]

A new channel that was originally streaming only is to join Sky & Freeview:

https://rxtvinfo.com/2022/new-earthx...testing-on-sky

I wonder if this means that they found that streaming only wasn't viable?

I don't recall this happening before, I've only ever heard of linear channels going streaming only.

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

A new channel that was originally streaming only is to join Sky & Freeview:

https://rxtvinfo.com/2022/new-earthx...testing-on-sky

I wonder if this means that they found that streaming only wasn't viable?

I don't recall this happening before, I've only ever heard of linear channels going streaming only.

I'd take the Freeview launch with a pinch of salt, lots of channels have got a Freeview channel license then never launched in any form. And that license may be so they can join in the streaming section of the Freeview EPG, it doesn't mean they are going to try to get a broadcast slot, shich would be very expensive anyway, unlike satellite.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I'd take the Freeview launch with a pinch of salt, lots of channels have got a Freeview channel license then never launched in any form. And that license may be so they can join in the streaming section of the Freeview EPG, it doesn't mean they are going to try to get a broadcast slot, shich would be very expensive anyway, unlike satellite.

Good points. They may also want to be ready should a (relatively) cheap Freeview slot arise (a la Com7).

I'm hoping that they'll join Freesat too because they probably won't join Virgin as this is the least cost effective platform for broadcasters.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I'd take the Freeview launch with a pinch of salt, lots of channels have got a Freeview channel license then never launched in any form. And that license may be so they can join in the streaming section of the Freeview EPG, it doesn't mean they are going to try to get a broadcast slot, shich would be very expensive anyway, unlike satellite.

EarthX TV has a DTPS Licence for Freeview.

Channel 4 has a DTPS Licence.
Vision HBB TV - has a DTAS Licence.

A broadcaster need a DTAS Licence to stream on Freeview.

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by Media Boy UK

EarthX TV has a DTPS Licence for Freeview.

Channel 4 has a DTPS Licence.
Vision HBB TV - has a DTAS Licence.

A broadcaster need a DTAS Licence to stream on Freeview.

VisionTV is a portal for other channels, not a channel. Portals might be treated differently than channels directly on the EPG.

So that poses two questions:
1) What do the channels who use the likes of VisionTV's services need license-wise?
2) What do the channels on Freeview's streaming section that aren't portals need?
E.g.. FailArmy, SonLife, Arise News

You may be correct MB, but VisionTV isn't the type of service I was talking about, so might be different license-wise.

[Media Boy UK]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

VisionTV is a portal for other channels, not a channel. Portals might be treated differently than channels directly on the EPG.

So that poses two questions:
1) What do the channels who use the likes of VisionTV's services need license-wise?
2) What do the channels on Freeview's streaming section that aren't portals need?
E.g.. FailArmy, SonLife, Arise News

You may be correct MB, but VisionTV isn't the type of service I was talking about, so might be different license-wise.

Together TV has been listed two times one for DTPS Licence and one for DTAS Licence.

http://static.ofcom.org.uk/static/ra...sdtps-main.htm

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by Media Boy UK

Together TV has been listed two times one for DTPS Licence and one for DTAS Licence.

http://static.ofcom.org.uk/static/ra...sdtps-main.htm

Together TV is IP Fallback in conjunction with its recently launched Freeview App, rather than being the same as those in the Streaming-only section of the EPG. There may be different license criteria.

[jfman]

Bad news for deep pockets DAZN that they’ve now got a £100m a year fight deal with a boxer with nowhere to go.