Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Deary me! While noting that you don't have evidence to back up your views, you expect me to quote chapter and verse on all your perceived obstacles to my vision of the future!! Once again, this is a discussion, not a scientific paper and everyone is welcome to disagree with me on my views. All of us have views on many things, without necessarily having all the statistical evidence and hard facts to hand.
Chris and yourself in particular have been pointing out that there are problems to achieving a complete change from broadcast linear TV to streaming. I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean that these problems cannot be overcome. Indeed, a £1.5m project was set up recently with a view to increasing network capacity 'by maximising spectral use and by combining appropriate digital technique with analogue and optical signal processing'. It is suggested that by developing equipment for use in optical fibre networks we can reduce energy consumption by more than half.
I am not denying for one moment that serving up the necessary bandwidth will be a challenge, but it is a challenge that tech companies and research groups are racing to beat. It is not for me to find the answers to these issues but I will say that the tech world appears to be pretty confident that the problems identified will be solved.
I remember that there were siren voices authoritatively saying on these forums a few years ago that VM didn't have sufficient bandwidth to carry all those HD channels. Remember what happened? VM simply created more bandwidth. There are times when people can't see their way through problems that are not theirs to solve.
I am becoming more confident with time that the days of broadcast linear TV are numbered. It is old fashioned and timewasting and I believe a sufficient number of people will eventually grow tired of it, rendering linear channels uneconomic. I think what you need to demonstrate is that viewers will not progressively be attracted to a more efficient means of viewing to the point that advertising revenues are reduced, rendering the present arrangements unviable.
As far as ads on Netflix are concerned, I think such a development would put me and many others off the service altogether. Netflix seem to be able to provide a good range of films and TV series for a pretty reasonable subscription at the moment, although I concede that the price will have to increase over time. Despite their denials, I guess they may introduce ads for those who cannot afford to pay a higher bill for the service, but either way, I think the new streaming offers coming through will be an attractive alternative to existing bundled channels. Currently you can get Freeview, a Now TV Entertainment Pass, Netflix and Amazon for under £20 per month. What the choice for sports fans will be in the future, we will have to wait and see, but I think Sky will be in competition with the global players who have the resources to bid high and provide their wider audiences with cheaper sport.
It is quite possible that more studios will decide to set up their own streaming sites (as HBO have done in the US). However, there will always be sufficient content for Netflix to procure (particularly films), and it will continue to make its own shows. Other content providers will want to make their shows easily accessible via the likes of Netflix (maybe after an initial exclusivity period) to maximise income generation.
I have never said that the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five will be 'going out of business'. Where did that come from? They will simply complete their migration to streaming services, either through i-Player, ITV Player, All 4 and Demand 5, and/or by collaborating together on one site.
|