VOD : Streaming services news, offers and general chit chat

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by 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.

An ambassador who preferred to fight for another channel too. Bizarre choice.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

An ambassador who prefers to fight for another channel too. Bizarre choice.

In fairness to AJ, it was contractual in the deal that took the fight to Saudi. What is odd is that they announced his deal beforehand, knowing full well there was a chance this fight could go to Sky. In fact making the deal when his career is arguably at a crossroads was bizarre.

A TV deal that has his next fights as Fury, potentially twice for the undisputed heavyweight championship as opposed to Whyte, Chisora, Price all over again. If AJ even has the hunger for it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

In fairness to AJ, it was contractual in the deal that took the fight to Saudi. What is odd is that they announced his deal beforehand, knowing full well there was a chance this fight could go to Sky. In fact making the deal when his career is arguably at a crossroads was bizarre.

A TV deal that has his next fights as Fury, potentially twice for the undisputed heavyweight championship as opposed to Whyte, Chisora, Price all over again. If AJ even has the hunger for it.

Totally agree. If they'd announced it this week then they could have billed it as move from Sky. Announcing it when they did was a needless gamble.

If they did want a deal with AJ, waiting until last night's result would have given a better feel for his value to DAZN. Kudos to him realising this and getting the deal wrapped up before the fight!

[epsilon]

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.

VisionTV needs a licence because it sends data over the DTT network for its portal. The services streaming on it don't need a licence at all, so an interesting loophole for channels denied a traditional licence by the regulator or the DCMS. If the streaming service operates their own portal or links to it with MHEG / hbbTV scripts, they would need a DTAS licence to transmit the data.

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by epsilon

VisionTV needs a licence because it sends data over the DTT network for its portal. The services streaming on it don't need a licence at all, so an interesting loophole for channels denied a traditional licence by the regulator or the DCMS. If the streaming service operates their own portal or links to it with MHEG / hbbTV scripts, they would need a DTAS licence to transmit the data.

I didn't say VisionTV didn't need a license, I just suggested it might not need to be identical as it wasn't a straightforward streamed channel.

If it was that simple a loophole there'd be a lot more channels, and a lot of dodgy channels on the portal services on Freeview. There aren't, so there must be more to it.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I didn't say VisionTV didn't need a license, I just suggested it might not need to be identical as it wasn't a straightforward streamed channel.

If it was that simple a loophole there'd be a lot more channels, and a lot of dodgy channels on the portal services on Freeview. There aren't, so there must be more to it.

Aren't there? Taking VisionTV as an example, it is carrying CGTN which has had its Ofcom licences revoked as it is funded by the Chinese communist party. There probably would be more if streamed services on Freeview were getting decent viewing figures. Internet delivered services don't need a licence but it will be interesting to see if that changes with Ofcom taking on more responsibility for regulating streamed services. Not that they can do much, as a regulator, about services streamed from abroad.

[1andrew1]

Pesky VM over in Ireland is launching an additional free linear channel, Virgin Media Four. It comes on top of the launch of Virgin Media More, another linear channel, earlier this year.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2022...el-in-ireland/

[1701-e]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Pesky VM over in Ireland is launching an additional free linear channel, Virgin Media Four. It comes on top of the launch of Virgin Media More, another linear channel, earlier this year.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2022...el-in-ireland/

Ireland doesn't think the future is only in streaming then.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1701-e

Ireland doesn't think the future is only in streaming then.

We are currently in the present.

Just a reminder...

[Media Boy UK]

ITVX to Launch in November

https://variety.com/2022/tv/global/i...22-1235349243/

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Media Boy UK

ITVX to Launch in November

https://variety.com/2022/tv/global/i...22-1235349243/

Looking forward to that.

[RichardCoulter]

Most online streaming services show about 90% of the same films and shows, they usually only have a few programmes which are specific to them so, if you don’t use it regularly, cancel it.

Taken from an article making suggestions on how to cut costs during the financial crisis.

Would experienced streamers agree with this? Thus far i've only used Now TV because Sky Atlantic isn't on Virgin Media, but always assumed that each major streaming service had substantially different content.

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Taken from an article making suggestions on how to cut costs during the financial crisis.

Would experienced streamers agree with this? Thus far i've only used Now TV because Sky Atlantic isn't on Virgin Media, but always assumed that each major streaming service had substantially different content.

Not my experience. Sounds like they made up a number to have something for the article.

If instead they meant 90% wasn't made for for the specific service and is instrad legacy content that has been available previously elsewhere, i.e. before streaming and/or the internet, then that would be more believable.

There isn't a lot of overlap of content from the On-demand services I've used.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Taken from an article making suggestions on how to cut costs during the financial crisis.

Would experienced streamers agree with this? Thus far i've only used Now TV because Sky Atlantic isn't on Virgin Media, but always assumed that each major streaming service had substantially different content.

Now TV is a different case. Most streamers have a lot of original content, and that is what is important to me.

[1andrew1]

Interesting article on how Netflix is becoming more traditional on rights.

Key excerpts below.

Netflix is starting to look more like traditional TV

The concept of sharing rights is no longer taboo. Flexibility is the order of the day.

From introducing advertising to developing live programming, Netflix is looking more like the incumbent broadcasters it was created to unseat.

Netflix, of course, has been one of the great beneficiaries of shared rights. Even today, much of its library is made up of shows licensed for secondary use. Hits such as Schitt’s Creek or Peaky Blinders were first broadcast elsewhere before landing on the Netflix platform.

This has some peculiar effects. Ofcom, the UK’s media regulator, recently examined how often shows licensed from the BBC, Channel 4 and other public service broadcasters were streamed on Netflix in the UK.

The estimate was 510mn times in the first quarter of 2022 — almost a third of what Netflix’s own original content attracted during the same period. One survey participant told Ofcom they didn’t bother watching a traditional TV channel (free-to-air) because they could simply wait for their shows to “turn up on Netflix” (behind a subscription paywall).

But for less prominent original content, it has also become more open to discussing “windowing”, where a programme maker can sell a show to traditional TV after it has appeared on Netflix for a set period of time. The gamble for the producer is taking a lower payment in return for extra rights.

https://www.ft.com/content/06a16b89-...0-e518877ac484