The future of television

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nothing in that articles forecasts the end of TV channels, just changing the method of delivery

Nothing in your post is disputed. But what I said over 9 years ago still stands as far as I am concerned. The linear and streamed versions of channels will exist side by side for a while, but it is most likely to be a transitional arrangement, not a permanent one (unless there is government intervention).

The last paragraph of my link is a clue:

While big channels like BBC One and ITV1 can still command large audiences via traditional platforms, the shift to streaming is already disproportionately affecting smaller and niche channels.

---------- Post added at 08:26 ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Sport is streamed all the time, OB.

Sky have been doing it for the best part of twenty years. The issue - that you seem to have missed - is that "deep pockets" streamers have challenges competing with incumbents in a well established market (pay-tv). Streaming in itself isn't a new market, merely a subset of an existing one.

You seem to have missed off this part:-



Nothing indicates this will replace existing offerings, rather the proposal is to complement them.

What I said was that the idea of making a package of sports available on different platforms could catch on. It's one way of reducing the cost to companies of providing sports content, and consumers pay less too because they are not forced to subscribe to more than one streamer to watch their favourite content.

---------- Post added at 08:28 ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

So 9 channels Ive never even heard of have dropped from a system I've never used. Ok.

The only thing in that article that remotely bothers me is the loss of Sky Satellite.
Sky Stream is not a suitable replacement unless they build in a recording or download system.
The mangled method they use atm is just bad, not to mention my TV still works when the internet fails.

More worrying for you if this is the beginning of a trend, though, isn't it?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What I said was that the idea of making a package of sports available on different platforms could catch on. It's one way of reducing the cost to companies of providing sports content, and consumers pay less too because they are not forced to subscribe to more than one streamer to watch their favourite content.

Why would it catch on? Anyone who wants sports can get it off Sky. Sky monetise it successfully.

Those with the begging bowl out for paltry rights can aggregate it as much as they wish it doesn’t add up to a viable platform.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Why would it catch on? Anyone who wants sports can get it off Sky. Sky monetise it successfully.

Those with the begging bowl out for paltry rights can aggregate it as much as they wish it doesn’t add up to a viable platform.

You were the one opining how expensive it was to have the streamers taking over sport. You know as well as I do, this trend will continue, but what this arrangement in the US shows is that there are opportunities to reduce these potential costs both for the streamers (through sharing the burden) and to the consumer (by making those sports available on multiple streamers).

You are still in denial over TV channels disappearing, aren’t you? And Sky may not always be hogging all the rights.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You were the one opining how expensive it was to have the streamers taking over sport. You know as well as I do, this trend will continue, but what this arrangement in the US shows is that there are opportunities to reduce these potential costs both for the streamers (through sharing the burden) and to the consumer (by making those sports available on multiple streamers).

You are still in denial over TV channels disappearing, aren’t you? And Sky may not always be hogging all the rights.

You do realise the the streamers "reducing potential costs by sharing the burden" would be a cartel, which is illegal?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You were the one opining how expensive it was to have the streamers taking over sport. You know as well as I do, this trend will continue, but what this arrangement in the US shows is that there are opportunities to reduce these potential costs both for the streamers (through sharing the burden) and to the consumer (by making those sports available on multiple streamers).

You are still in denial over TV channels disappearing, aren’t you? And Sky may not always be hogging all the rights.

The only user in denial here is you, OB.

Sky aren’t “hogging” all the rights - they’re bidding (like everyone else) in the open marketplace and monetising those rights from end users. Something that a “streamer” has been unable to do on any meaningful level for sports rights.

Your contention that they will have to break the law - as Hugh points out above - to make a return on sports rights speaks volumes as to the challenge.

Sky of course monetise their rights through streaming in addition to their own platform, and retailing through third parties such as Virgin Media. The market is well developed.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You do realise the the streamers "reducing potential costs by sharing the burden" would be a cartel, which is illegal?

I don’t think so, and the article this subject links to does not mention such a thing.

Why is this any different from Sky making their channels available to other providers such as Virgin? How is it different from multiple studios being involved in the making of one film?

The costs would be shared because several providers form a partnership and share both the costs and the profits, and consumers benefit by having to pay less in subscriptions. Everybody wins.

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:21 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The only user in denial here is you, OB.

Sky aren’t “hogging” all the rights - they’re bidding (like everyone else) in the open marketplace and monetising those rights from end users. Something that a “streamer” has been unable to do on any meaningful level for sports rights.

Your contention that they will have to break the law - as Hugh points out above - to make a return on sports rights speaks volumes as to the challenge.

Sky of course monetise their rights through streaming in addition to their own platform, and retailing through third parties such as Virgin Media. The market is well developed.

No, jfman. You are the one in denial here. So much so that you frequently resort to this sort of pedantry to try and make a point which we all know is becoming harder to argue as time goes on.

Despite the argument you and Hugh are making that it is against the law, the arrangement is already happening!

The article didn't mention it - you did.

The difference is between reselling and clubbing together to agree/reduce the amounts bid for the sports rights ("reduce these potential costs both for the streamers") - two different things….

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/what-cartel

What is a cartel?

Guide
A business cartel is a group of businesses working together to increase their profits. This includes:

Price fixing - two or more competing businesses directly or indirectly fixing prices.
Output quotas - limiting or preventing supply or production between competing businesses.
Market sharing - dividing up customers or prospective customers between competing businesses. This is where two or more businesses agree not to poach each other's customers or compete against each other in certain areas.
Bid rigging - an agreement between businesses as to whether or not to bid for certain tenders eg an agreement that one or more of them will not bid or that one will put in an falsely high price so another business can win the contract.

These agreements may be written or verbal and don't need to be formal for the law to apply. Cartels are illegal under both civil and criminal law.

[OLD BOY]

The article said it would be a joint venture. Obviously they would operate that within the law, which is not the most difficult thing to achieve. After all, Netflix and all the popular streamers are available through Sky, Virgin, Roku, Talk Talk, Amazon - so I say again, how is this any different?

I’m observing what is going on, not giving you a legal justification.How precisely this arrangement will work within legal constraints is a matter for the companies themselves to iron out. Perhaps you might like to offer them chapter and verse as to why you are suggesting they can’t do it…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The costs would be shared because several providers form a partnership and share both the costs and the profits, and consumers benefit by having to pay less in subscriptions. Everybody wins.

Consumers don’t pay less if content is bundled together. Indeed, they end up paying for the entire bundle including the content they don’t watch. Wasn’t that supposed to be a benefit of streaming to stop that?

No, jfman. You are the one in denial here. So much so that you frequently resort to this sort of pedantry to try and make a point which we all know is becoming harder to argue as time goes on.

Despite the argument you and Hugh are making that it is against the law, the arrangement is already happening!

There is nothing pedantic about introducing your fanciful posts to reality. It’s very easy to argue that no streamer has a business model for sports rights in the UK, indeed as every auction passes and rights sell for less in real terms than last time it’s obvious.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Consumers don’t pay less if content is bundled together. Indeed, they end up paying for the entire bundle including the content they don’t watch. Wasn’t that supposed to be a benefit of streaming to stop that?



There is nothing pedantic about introducing your fanciful posts to reality. It’s very easy to argue that no streamer has a business model for sports rights in the UK, indeed as every auction passes and rights sell for less in real terms than last time it’s obvious.

As I said very clearly, this arrangement is being introduced in the US, not the UK. However, I don’t see that as an immovable barrier.

The way I would assume this would work is that a group of companies get together to form a joint venture, which then bids for the rights to various sports. The rights they achieve are then made available to various other streamers and TV channels to provide access through subscriptions.

You are making too many assumptions here when you talk about bundling. There is no reason why streamers cannot separate out the main sporting events (football, tennis, horse racing, etc) and charge according to the sports the subscriber wants to watch.

[jfman]

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bi...133025822.html

Their still-unnamed streaming service will offer live linear channels, such as ESPN, ABC, Fox, TNT and TBS, games and other sports rights from all three companies on a nonexclusive basis.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bi...133025822.html

Glad you find that funny, but I see nothing wrong with that. Sport will always be linear because it's live. You may be making too much of that word 'channel' but I won't spoil your evening.

All these bundled services for a consolidated price should have a ‘snappy" name.

How about "Cable+"?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Glad you find that funny, but I see nothing wrong with that. Sport will always be linear because it's live. You may be making too much of that word 'channel' but I won't spoil your evening.

It’s quite clear that it will be offering content as both linear channels and on demand. Much like Sky, or Virgin Media, or Peacock in the US.

I, of course, see this as natural as it accommodates all user preferences.

Some services do stream live sports on their apps outside of linear channels so it’s a conscious choice to present content to consumers in this way.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s quite clear that it will be offering content as both linear channels and on demand. Much like Sky, or Virgin Media, or Peacock in the US.

I, of course, see this as natural as it accommodates all user preferences.

Some services do stream live sports on their apps outside of linear channels so it’s a conscious choice to present content to consumers in this way.

Well, so what? Anyone would think this was 2035! 🤭