VOD : Linear is old tech - on demand is the future

[jfman]

"As some of the posts on here show" - sorry Old Boy I think what you mean to say is that the BARB figures show, and report, that millions of people sit down and watch TV as scheduled in addition to catch up, streaming and time shifting.

You have made one quite interesting point here, I supposed like the broken clock everyone has their moments.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a note to clients this week, cable providers are coming around to the idea that it’s OK to lose TV subscribers as long as they keep paying for internet access.

Let's think, why would operators of hybrid-fibre coax networks want people to use more data. Price rises!

Once the speeds that households need push through 24Mb ADSL2+ and 80Mb FTTC limits cable operators are ideally positioned to price their broadband products against FTTP offerings which will cost (on average) thousands per home just to put the infrastructure in place. Indeed, Openreach have a wholesale price of £80 per month for 1Gbps. Virgin's 350Mb standalone has a standard price of £55, so expect 500Mb and 1Gbps to be similar and higher respectively once launched.

Cable operators around the world are positioned to deploy technologies to millions of homes that can reach these speeds at a fraction of the cost on their existing networks and hike their prices to match the rest of the market.

FTTP is unlikely to be regulated in the same way as copper lines and the amount of genuine competition available to each consumer will likely be virtually non-existent for years to come (this brings me back to oligopoly but I know people get bored of economics).

This could be right, of course, but having just acquired the 'ultimate oomph' package, which gave me my existing channels + Sky Movies + Sky Sports + 500 Mb speed broadband (instead of 'only' 200 Mb) and a new 'unlimited' SIM for only £1 more than I was paying before, I do wonder if the cablecos are ready to ditch the pay tv subs so readily just yet.

Now let's break down your package - I'm guessing you got the offer price of £99? The Rt. Hon. Phillip Hammond MP is straight onto a wedge there.

So you've got a SIM, and not owning their own network there's a chunk of money to our good friends at BT already. The unlimited SIM retails at £27, but who knows what goes to BT. Will we call it a tenner? Higher? Lower?

Sky Sports and Sky Movies will obviously be contentiously priced. It's not in the public domain, but when relations were slightly worse between Sky and the cable operators they actually insisted they had to sell these channels at a loss on cable! Now if you don't have the top bundle (or a predecessor) Virgin charge an astonishing £58.75 for Sports and Movies HD. Wow. That's a lot. The undiscounted price on Sky is £49, but it goes on offer at £34. There's really no way of knowing what chunk of your subscription goes on this - but it'll be sizeable. More than a score? Higher? Lower?

Sky's basic channels, of the famous dispute fame, and all the other third parties on the platform are onto a chunk. £3 a month? £5? Pennies per channel, of course, but with hundreds of channels pennies add up!

We're back to our good friends BT once again as BT Sport has a reasonably lucrative, but undisclosed, deal for all it's channels to be included in TV XL or whatever they call it these days. Way back in the dim and distant past Setanta reportedly got a similar deal at £2.50 a month, and they weren't fronting up the thick end of £2bn every three years for football. BT, on it's own platform, charges over £15 a month. I think it's fair to say Virgin's wholesale deal is probably at least double Setanta's given the financial commitment BT is making in sports rights.

So, would Virgin prefer to sell you broadband at £55 a month you need but can't get anywhere else, or a discounted ultimate oomph package at £99 and hand out all this money to third parties and to a great extent rely upon them to sell their overall package?

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I record off the linear channels so it’s simple to zip through ad breaks.

Me too - as life is too short to watch ads or wait for the actual program to re-start.

I particularly watch recordings of live sport so I can FFwd through half-time.

This time-shifting usually involves starting watching a match 15-20 mins after ko.

It also means I can easily pause if I need a refill.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

"As some of the posts on here show" - sorry Old Boy I think what you mean to say is that the BARB figures show, and report, that millions of people sit down and watch TV as scheduled in addition to catch up, streaming and time shifting.

You have made one quite interesting point here, I supposed like the broken clock everyone has their moments.



Let's think, why would operators of hybrid-fibre coax networks want people to use more data. Price rises!

Once the speeds that households need push through 24Mb ADSL2+ and 80Mb FTTC limits cable operators are ideally positioned to price their broadband products against FTTP offerings which will cost (on average) thousands per home just to put the infrastructure in place. Indeed, Openreach have a wholesale price of £80 per month for 1Gbps. Virgin's 350Mb standalone has a standard price of £55, so expect 500Mb and 1Gbps to be similar and higher respectively once launched.

Cable operators around the world are positioned to deploy technologies to millions of homes that can reach these speeds at a fraction of the cost on their existing networks and hike their prices to match the rest of the market.

FTTP is unlikely to be regulated in the same way as copper lines and the amount of genuine competition available to each consumer will likely be virtually non-existent for years to come (this brings me back to oligopoly but I know people get bored of economics).



Now let's break down your package - I'm guessing you got the offer price of £99? The Rt. Hon. Phillip Hammond MP is straight onto a wedge there.

So you've got a SIM, and not owning their own network there's a chunk of money to our good friends at BT already. The unlimited SIM retails at £27, but who knows what goes to BT. Will we call it a tenner? Higher? Lower?

Sky Sports and Sky Movies will obviously be contentiously priced. It's not in the public domain, but when relations were slightly worse between Sky and the cable operators they actually insisted they had to sell these channels at a loss on cable! Now if you don't have the top bundle (or a predecessor) Virgin charge an astonishing £58.75 for Sports and Movies HD. Wow. That's a lot. The undiscounted price on Sky is £49, but it goes on offer at £34. There's really no way of knowing what chunk of your subscription goes on this - but it'll be sizeable. More than a score? Higher? Lower?

Sky's basic channels, of the famous dispute fame, and all the other third parties on the platform are onto a chunk. £3 a month? £5? Pennies per channel, of course, but with hundreds of channels pennies add up!

We're back to our good friends BT once again as BT Sport has a reasonably lucrative, but undisclosed, deal for all it's channels to be included in TV XL or whatever they call it these days. Way back in the dim and distant past Setanta reportedly got a similar deal at £2.50 a month, and they weren't fronting up the thick end of £2bn every three years for football. BT, on it's own platform, charges over £15 a month. I think it's fair to say Virgin's wholesale deal is probably at least double Setanta's given the financial commitment BT is making in sports rights.

So, would Virgin prefer to sell you broadband at £55 a month you need but can't get anywhere else, or a discounted ultimate oomph package at £99 and hand out all this money to third parties and to a great extent rely upon them to sell their overall package?

All very interesting, jfman. However, my point was that I now have a faster broadband speed, Sky Cinema and Sky Sports (which I didn't have via Virgin Media previously) for just £1 extra per month.

That is extremely good value in my book, and much better than Sky can offer.

How it's all made up is not something that concerns me. I was paying more than this for telephone landline alone when I was with BT back into the 1990s. I am hardly going to complain about that.

---------- Post added at 15:25 ---------- Previous post was at 15:16 ----------

The reduced content from the US that has been noticed on the pay tv channels has had the beneficial effect of forcing Sky to redouble its efforts in producing more content of its own, which can only be a good thing.

I was surprised to read that in making his plans for the future, Sky CEO Jeremy Darroch was assuming that the streamers would share their content with Sky, given that many of the studios now wanted a direct to customer relationship rather than use third parties.

I think this may happen after about five years, when the streaming services calculate that by entering into contracts with other providers they will be able to top up their revenues without diminishing their own service, but if he is looking for such arrangements on a short-term basis, he might be disappointed.

https://tbivision.com/2019/07/26/sky...ming-partners/

[muppetman11]

What reduced content from the US ?

The broadcasters are still currently selling all their shows to the channels/services bidding the most.

[jfman]

Old Boy doesn't do facts, he just offers opinion that drops into his head as reality if he can get a couple of similar Google hits.

He's also not interested in why the largest operators of hybrid fibre coax networks in the world might be indifferent to the rise of streaming he's only interested in what he pays.

I suppose seeing things as "macro" level hasn't been his thing throughout.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

What reduced content from the US ?

The broadcasters are still currently selling all their shows to the channels/services bidding the most.

Eye on the ball, muppetman.

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Old Boy doesn't do facts, he just offers opinion that drops into his head as reality if he can get a couple of similar Google hits.

He's also not interested in why the largest operators of hybrid fibre coax networks in the world might be indifferent to the rise of streaming he's only interested in what he pays.

I suppose seeing things as "macro" level hasn't been his thing throughout.

Rude. Wrong.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Eye on the ball, muppetman.

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------



Rude. Wrong.

My eyes are always on the ball , US content is still being made available to UK channels so not sure what you are talking about.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

My eyes are always on the ball , US content is still being made available to UK channels so not sure what you are talking about.

Of course US content is still available to pay tv operators, muppetman. The evidence is there in the listings, isn't it? Once again, you are twisting the message.

I have stated on a number of occasions that there are fewer US dramas around these days compared with only a few years ago, and this trend is likely to continue at a faster rate before long. The new streamers will hog most of this content to drive audiences to their platforms.

While a certain amount of content is likely to be available, a great deal will by-pass the pay tv companies and go straight to the streamers. You can already see how this is beginning to impact Netflix, as it is forced to give up its Disney content, for example. Sky is likely to lose at least some of the contracts it has with the film studios, and as existing contracts expire, there will be no content left to replace the shows that have to be given up.

The stepping up of Sky's commissioning of double its original content would not have come about if it could still rely on good US shows being available for screening on their platform. It is also why the likes of Virgin Media,, Sky and BT will all be aiming at being super-aggregators of content in the future.

The attached article supports my view, but of course there are others as well if you look for them.

https://www.capitalgroup.com/pcs/lat...ng-shifts.html

Content providers are beginning to offer services directly to consumers.

The most dramatic development has come from content providers. In moves that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, they are starting to bypass cable and satellite companies in favor of selling directly to consumers over the Internet. HBO, for example, garnered significant attention with its rollout of a stand-alone streaming service. Showtime, another premium channel, plans a similar initiative. CBS has begun offering a streaming service made up of current and past programs. These types of offerings can lure customers who don’t subscribe to cable. More importantly, the new services establish a foothold in the digital marketplace that can be leveraged as on-demand grows in popularity.

[jfman]

Like the sunrise inevitably a regular occurrence is Old Boy trotting out more opinion pieces of the exact same discredited opinions. C'est la vie.

[muppetman11]

And yet I have a hard drive full of US Shows Old Boy go figure.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

Like the sunrise inevitably a regular occurrence is Old Boy trotting out more opinion pieces of the exact same discredited opinions. C'est la vie.

Like some politicians you could say...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

And yet I have a hard drive full of US Shows Old Boy go figure.

So have I muppetman but not from any cable or satallite company. Go figure!

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by pip08456

So have I muppetman but not from any cable or satallite company. Go figure!

How you acquire your content is entirely your choice.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

While a certain amount of content is likely to be available, a great deal will by-pass the pay tv companies and go straight to the streamers. You can already see how this is beginning to impact Netflix, as it is forced to give up its Disney content, for example. Sky is likely to lose at least some of the contracts it has with the film studios, and as existing contracts expire, there will be no content left to replace the shows that have to be given up.

The stepping up of Sky's commissioning of double its original content would not have come about if it could still rely on good US shows being available for screening on their platform. It is also why the likes of Virgin Media,, Sky and BT will all be aiming at being super-aggregators of content in the future.

The attached article supports my view, but of course there are others as well if you look for them.

https://www.capitalgroup.com/pcs/lat...ng-shifts.html

Content providers are beginning to offer services directly to consumers.

The most dramatic development has come from content providers. In moves that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, they are starting to bypass cable and satellite companies in favor of selling directly to consumers over the Internet. HBO, for example, garnered significant attention with its rollout of a stand-alone streaming service. Showtime, another premium channel, plans a similar initiative. CBS has begun offering a streaming service made up of current and past programs. These types of offerings can lure customers who don’t subscribe to cable. More importantly, the new services establish a foothold in the digital marketplace that can be leveraged as on-demand grows in popularity.

The CBS/Viacom remerger is expected to be announced next week, so we should get a combined streamer from them at some point over the next year or so.

On Disney's removal of content, was that ever confirmed for the UK Netflix service? I can't seem to find any announcement about that. Even in the States, due to existing contracts, some Disney material will remain on Netflix US into 2021.

Although I largely agree with OB's views, I do think we need to add the caveat that we don't know whether the Hollywood media cos will withhold content from Sky/Virgin/Netflix UK etc yet. I think the signs are obvious, but we need to wait and see what actually happens.

We know what's going to happen in the States, or at least some idea, as there have been several announcements, but as contracts with global broadcasters don't expire until the mid 2020s in some cases, we may not feel the pain, yet, that will be felt in the States.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The CBS/Viacom remerger is expected to be announced next week, so we should get a combined streamer from them at some point over the next year or so.

On Disney's removal of content, was that ever confirmed for the UK Netflix service? I can't seem to find any announcement about that. Even in the States, due to existing contracts, some Disney material will remain on Netflix US into 2021.

Although I largely agree with OB's views, I do think we need to add the caveat that we don't know whether the Hollywood media cos will withhold content from Sky/Virgin/Netflix UK etc yet. I think the signs are obvious, but we need to wait and see what actually happens.

We know what's going to happen in the States, or at least some idea, as there have been several announcements, but as contracts with global broadcasters don't expire until the mid 2020s in some cases, we may not feel the pain, yet, that will be felt in the States.

You are asking the wrong man for details. He's been quite open that details, and economics, aren't his bag.