The future of television

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Who said that? Of course we will always have programmes to watch that are live. But live tv doesn’t have to be consumed on a conventional channel.

As I have said before, you can watch live tv on the BBC I-player.

Whether in the BBC I-player or not its still a channel you are watching , the TV guide is much easier to find programmes rather than going into Iplayer for its now and next.

You are trying to fix something what isn't broken.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

You are trying to fix something what isn't broken.

That sums up progress for you

This discussion is just going round in circles now. For the nth time: the broadcast technology is irrelevant. Television broadcast according to a schedule is linear.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Well, no.

The more content splinters, and the greater demand for limited content becomes, drives up prices.

I see DAZN have trebled their prices in Italy following acquisition of Serie A rights.



Why would they pay twice? As far as I can tell all the linear channels of any note have a streaming presence. They’re not mutually exclusive in the way you seem to portray.



Not for end users without internet or with slow speeds it isn’t.

For someone who objects to the Now TV boost I think you’ll find many more object to having to pay ever increasing amounts for a quality internet service just to receive television.



Palpable nonsense? See above.



Because the average user isn’t dogmatic like you are OB. They’ll watch linear when it suits, record when it suits, and stream when it suits (if of course their internet is up to it).



As you’ve been unable to quantify the cost of maintaining a linear presence in addition to streaming for existing linear channels - essentially the status quo - it’s clearly palpable nonsense that users are paying twice for the same content.

You are creating arguments out of points I have not made. As usual.

For starters, you need to pay more attention to what is actually happening before you respond to these things.

The new approach, as you don’t need me to remind you, is the ‘direct to consumer’ approach, and by that we are talking about all content being available on streamers. Given that we are now finding channels closing down and the content being transferred exclusively to streamers, I don’t know where this option is going to be for people to watch this content through TV channels even if they wanted to. Note that Disney+ has closed all its children’s channels and all its film channels. The content is now on Disney+ and there are no linear channels, just as I have said would happen all the way along. But for some inexplicable reason, you don’t see that. The next closures will probably be the Discovery channels, and Discovery+ doesn’t have linear channels either.

Now although linear channels are available on Pluto TV, Now and the BBC I-Player,, these are very much exceptions, and the first two put their on demand content more prominently on their streamers. I cannot see the linear channels continuing to appear on Now (TV) when Sky finally launch their streamer (Peacock), although they may continue the practice until the satellite part of their business continues. The I-Player is unlikely to change until all terrestrial is transferred to IPTV.

Of course viewers will not pay twice for the same content. So if, for example, Virgin decided to offer a choice of streamer bundles and terrestrial TV, and it is almost certain that this will be the case, we would no longer be paying for pay-tv channels because they would no longer be offered. There would be no point in doing so, would there?

You claimed that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. When I questioned you on that your response was that UHD was not available to those not on the internet or who suffered low speeds. But that does not address the point that the streamers offer so much more UHD and no SD, making your assertion completely wrong. I might as well respond to your point by saying that Freeview channels were not available to people without electricity. Clear, unambiguous nonsense.

As for your ‘cost of maintaining linear TV’ argument is concerned, again, it is the wrong argument. The future is with the streamers, and most of these will not carry an option of linear channels, whether you like it or not. Disney is showing the way. All the things you have been denying in relation to my vision of the future are starting to be realised, but jfman, you just carry on arguing. In fact, I suspect that you will still be arguing when the last linear channel has closed down.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are creating arguments out of points I have not made. As usual.

For starters, you need to pay more attention to what is actually happening before you respond to these things.

Have DAZN not trebled their price in Italy?

The new approach, as you don’t need me to remind you, is the ‘direct to consumer’ approach,

Make your mind up OB. One day it’s direct to consumer, the next it’s content aggregators.

Now although linear channels are available on Pluto TV,

The plucky upstart defying the trend.

I cannot see the linear channels continuing to appear on Now (TV) when Sky finally launch their streamer (Peacock), although they may continue the practice until the satellite part of their business continues. The I-Player is unlikely to change until all terrestrial is transferred to IPTV.

2035?

Of course viewers will not pay twice for the same content. So if, for example, Virgin decided to offer a choice of streamer bundles and terrestrial TV, and it is almost certain that this will be the case, we would no longer be paying for pay-tv channels because they would no longer be offered. There would be no point in doing so, would there?

Why would they no longer be offered by anyone?

You claimed that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. When I questioned you on that your response was that UHD was not available to those not on the internet or who suffered low speeds. But that does not address the point that the streamers offer so much more UHD and no SD, making your assertion completely wrong. I might as well respond to your point by saying that Freeview channels were not available to people without electricity. Clear, unambiguous nonsense.

The number of people without the internet - and fast internet - is clearly far greater those without electricity. Yet you have the cheek, despite all of your inconsistencies, to accuse anyone else of spouting nonsense.

As for your ‘cost of maintaining linear TV’ argument is concerned, again, it is the wrong argument.

Incorrect Old Boy. It’s precisely the right argument - your inability to offer a response of any meaningful consequence obviously means you’d prefer to debate something else. That’s understandable. But it doesn’t change the fact that the financial viability of linear television will continue long past your arbitrary end date plucked from thin air.

[1andrew1]

UK to rein in online platforms’ power in effort to protect public broadcasters

Ministers want to ensure prominence of channels such as BBC and ITV on smart televisions

...Ministers are to clear legislative time as soon as next year for an overhaul of broadcasting rules to guarantee the prominence of public service media (PSM) such as BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 on smart televisions, according to Whitehall officials. The measures will draw on recommendations to be published next month by Ofcom, the media regulator.

Tough enforcement powers would effectively insist internet-connected televisions carry PSM apps and content in prime positions on streaming interfaces, a requirement that strengthens the power of broadcasters in commercial negotiations with device makers and platform services, according to people familiar with the plans.

https://www.ft.com/content/9bebcf05-...a-91c4f9914e63

At present I can order the apps as I choose, along the bottom of the “home” view on my Samsung TV. I have Netflix in prime position at bottom left, followed by iPlayer, Disney+ and Amazon Prime. ITV, channel 4 and 5 players are well off to the right somewhere because I so rarely use them. I’m guessing in future, the PSB apps will be hard-coded to the left of the home view and only then will I be able to re-order all the others.

[RichardCoulter]

I think so too.

It will be the streamer version of the PSB channels having 'due prominence' on the EPG's.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by epsilon

As I said, not everyone is in the same race as you, heading for a common finish line. Those viewers determined to stay with scheduled pay-TV will have no reason to switch to these larger bundles, which you seem to desire, packaging the streamers. If they don't like the experience of searching for content on the streaming apps, they won't be be paying more to add the streamers to their TV bundle.

I don’t think you are getting my drift. At some point in the future, VM will have to take account of the fact that TV channels are closing and the content added to the streamers. As we’d otherwise have fewer channels, it would make sense to have packages of streamers instead of pay-tv channels.

Look at what happened with all those Disney channels, and think about what will be the result when they all do that. It’s just a matter of time.

My point is that you won’t be able to choose between scheduled linear channels as now and the streamers, because the linear channels will no longer exist. Just like happened with Disney.

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Whether in the BBC I-player or not its still a channel you are watching , the TV guide is much easier to find programmes rather than going into Iplayer for its now and next.

You are trying to fix something what isn't broken.

Wait a minute - you should know by now that what I have been saying is that the scheduled linear channels as we know them now will no longer exist. All4 is a channel, as is My5, the ITV Hub and of course the BBC I-Player. They may continue to exist beyond our current scheduled channels, although they may become absorbed within a free section of Britbox or something like that. So ITV, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, etc will all combine under let’s say the ITV Hub, categorised by programme type instead of by channel.

How on Earth you think it is easier to find a programme in a TV listings magazine with all those listed channels, I don’t know. In future, you would simply go to a streamer and look up dramas, documentaries, and so forth. Sky and Virgin could assist by providing such categories together for all the streamers on their system to assist the viewer to find the programme of their choice rather than search streamer by streamer.

By the way, Amazon already does something similar, as does Apple+.

[jfman]

I’m still lost is the streaming model direct to consumer or reliant upon Sky/Virgin or whoever else for wholesale revenue?

Still nothing on where/when BBC/ITV/Sky arbitrarily close down linear channels rather than continue to support their cross platform offerings.

Nothing on who/where/when this becomes as seamless as an EPG.

Pipe dream stuff.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m still lost is the streaming model direct to consumer or reliant upon Sky/Virgin or whoever else for wholesale revenue?

Still nothing on where/when BBC/ITV/Sky arbitrarily close down linear channels rather than continue to support their cross platform offerings.

Nothing on who/where/when this becomes as seamless as an EPG.

Pipe dream stuff.

On Sundays it's wholesaled by the telcos, on Mondays it's direct to consumer. I'll keep you posted about Tuesday.

Please DO NOT reply to posts by typing inside the quote you’re responding to. It screws up the forum formatting when someone later wants to respond to you.

One post removed.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t think you are getting my drift. At some point in the future, VM will have to take account of the fact that TV channels are closing and the content added to the streamers. As we’d otherwise have fewer channels, it would make sense to have packages of streamers instead of pay-tv channels.

Look at what happened with all those Disney channels, and think about what will be the result when they all do that. It’s just a matter of time.

My point is that you won’t be able to choose between scheduled linear channels as now and the streamers, because the linear channels will no longer exist. Just like happened with Disney.

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------



Wait a minute - you should know by now that what I have been saying is that the scheduled linear channels as we know them now will no longer exist. All4 is a channel, as is My5, the ITV Hub and of course the BBC I-Player. They may continue to exist beyond our current scheduled channels, although they may become absorbed within a free section of Britbox or something like that. So ITV, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, etc will all combine under let’s say the ITV Hub, categorised by programme type instead of by channel.

How on Earth you think it is easier to find a programme in a TV listings magazine with all those listed channels, I don’t know. In future, you would simply go to a streamer and look up dramas, documentaries, and so forth. Sky and Virgin could assist by providing such categories together for all the streamers on their system to assist the viewer to find the programme of their choice rather than search streamer by streamer.

By the way, Amazon already does something similar, as does Apple+.

Who said anything about a TV listings magazine

A digital TV guide I'm sure what I put was pretty clear.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t think you are getting my drift. At some point in the future, VM will have to take account of the fact that TV channels are closing and the content added to the streamers. As we’d otherwise have fewer channels, it would make sense to have packages of streamers instead of pay-tv channels.

Look at what happened with all those Disney channels, and think about what will be the result when they all do that. It’s just a matter of time.

My point is that you won’t be able to choose between scheduled linear channels as now and the streamers, because the linear channels will no longer exist. Just like happened with Disney.

I do realise that your fantasy situation is to have world where only streamers exist and linear channels no longer exist. Nobody else is going to look at broadcasting with exactly the same extreme viewpoint as yourself. It isn't going to make anyone who doesn't want to seek out content on a streamer to suddenly think "oh! OLD BOY dreams of a world where linear channels no longer exist. I must change my life around and stop watching scheduled TV". Really, it just isn't going to happen.

Okay, let's look at Disney, it tried and failed to acquire Sky. If it had been successful I don't think they would have gone through the scheduled channel cull we have now seen. When the Disney kids channels closed, reports were that Disney was asking too much to recontract for channels with declining viewing patterns. Nothing unusual there, viewing patterns change and pay-tv providers no longer consider them to be worth the asking price. The profit margin is no longer there for the pay-tv provider.

Disney is fairly unique, it has the global scale to throw all its weight behind its streaming service. As a global provider, it doesn't even matter if their decision in the UK and Europe loses viewers. They are charging their subscribers far more than they were getting from the pay-tv providers so they still have some income, even in the worst case scenario. In America, they still have the ABC network as an outlet for scheduled content, so very little risk in that market.

Looking at the other channel closures over the last few months, I don't see anything to be of concern. CBS/Viacom killed off a few music channels, viewing figures have been dropping for years in this genre, so understandable. Discovery killed off a few of their under-performing channels. They have recently acquired channels from UKTV and were spreading their content too thinly across their channels. Some fairly routine and far from unexpected changes there.

No real indication of the pay-tv providers haemorrhaging channels.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m still lost is the streaming model direct to consumer or reliant upon Sky/Virgin or whoever else for wholesale revenue?

Still nothing on where/when BBC/ITV/Sky arbitrarily close down linear channels rather than continue to support their cross platform offerings.

Nothing on who/where/when this becomes as seamless as an EPG.

Pipe dream stuff.

I wonder how he thinks it will be funded. If Sky dropped the Disney channels because the profit margin was too small, why would they be happy to move from selling scheduled channels direct to their own customers. The small amount of cash received from acting as a subscription collector for global streamers isn't going to be enough to run a viable TV platform.

Not to mention that the streamers will be reluctant to wholesale their streaming platforms, it cuts into their profit margins too.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Please DO NOT reply to posts by typing inside the quote you’re responding to. It screws up the forum formatting when someone later wants to respond to you.

One post removed.

Oh, thanks for that, Chris, really helpful. I only did it that way to avoid the more time-consuming method. However, consider me told. jfman will need to guess at my responses, but it really shouldn’t take too much brainpower, I guess.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------

Originally Posted by epsilon

I do realise that your fantasy situation is to have world where only streamers exist and linear channels no longer exist. Nobody else is going to look at broadcasting with exactly the same extreme viewpoint as yourself. It isn't going to make anyone who doesn't want to seek out content on a streamer to suddenly think "oh! OLD BOY dreams of a world where linear channels no longer exist. I must change my life around and stop watching scheduled TV". Really, it just isn't going to happen.

Okay, let's look at Disney, it tried and failed to acquire Sky. If it had been successful I don't think they would have gone through the scheduled channel cull we have now seen. When the Disney kids channels closed, reports were that Disney was asking too much to recontract for channels with declining viewing patterns. Nothing unusual there, viewing patterns change and pay-tv providers no longer consider them to be worth the asking price. The profit margin is no longer there for the pay-tv provider.

Disney is fairly unique, it has the global scale to throw all its weight behind its streaming service. As a global provider, it doesn't even matter if their decision in the UK and Europe loses viewers. They are charging their subscribers far more than they were getting from the pay-tv providers so they still have some income, even in the worst case scenario. In America, they still have the ABC network as an outlet for scheduled content, so very little risk in that market.

Looking at the other channel closures over the last few months, I don't see anything to be of concern. CBS/Viacom killed off a few music channels, viewing figures have been dropping for years in this genre, so understandable. Discovery killed off a few of their under-performing channels. They have recently acquired channels from UKTV and were spreading their content too thinly across their channels. Some fairly routine and far from unexpected changes there.

No real indication of the pay-tv providers haemorrhaging channels.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------


I wonder how he thinks it will be funded. If Sky dropped the Disney channels because the profit margin was too small, why would they be happy to move from selling scheduled channels direct to their own customers. The small amount of cash received from acting as a subscription collector for global streamers isn't going to be enough to run a viable TV platform.

Not to mention that the streamers will be reluctant to wholesale their streaming platforms, it cuts into their profit margins too.

This is just fantasy, you know. I have said the linear channels will close years ago and I was derided for expressing such an opinion. Now it’s actually started to happen, well within my timeframe, you are pleading a special case forDisney. What will be the special case for Discovery channels, which are probably the next in line.

As for adding these streamers to TV platforms, how do you explain the streamers we already have on Sky, Virgin Media and BT? How do you explain Roku and Amazon Fire?

Whatever the economic arguments you may have, please just acknowledge that it is already happening!

You are personalising this as if it’s my fault!