VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Hi, Stuart, I've scissored your reply to concentrate on the main points that I wanted to make on this.

I think you may be reading more into my 'selection' than actually was the case. It was a few months ago when I went through part of the Netflix library and added the programmes I thought were worth watching to 'My List'. I don't do it on a regular basis, but it only took me a short time (about 20 minutes from memory).

That list remains on the system each time you access it, so by going to 'My Lists', all the selected programmes are on there. All you have to do is choose one - I had no idea I was going to watch 'Damages' until I saw it on there.

Although there is a little time delay getting into Netflix, once you are in, this process takes just seconds and I would be willing to bet that I can find something worth watching long before you do when 'channel hopping' (unless you are easily pleased!). I have found that method of selecting programmes extremely frustrating and even if I find something worthwhile, I find myself in the middle of the programme or a series that I hadn't watched before. A most inefficient means of finding a programme that you want to see, IMHO.

My comment about 4K was just meant to remind everyone that a change in technology can generate major change that we have little control over. Obviously a change to HD only is more likely than 4K in the foreseeable future, but who knows what may prompt a change in the present system?

I understand completely that some of you on the Forum are comfortable with what you have now, but many of us want more. It's not my decision whether they actually withdraw the current system; all I am saying is that it is unlikely to last forever.

Many of us want more? Don't see too many people agree with you at the minute. Happy to be corrected though.

Yeah things could change, but I simply can not see why they will. I like the odd binge watch, but I more pleased by the fact Netflix are drip feeding Better Call Saul. However, I will be seriously hacked off if someone trots into work at 12 on a Tuesday and spoils an episode of the show simply because he saw it 8 am whilst I had no way of watching at work. If that happens often enough, and too many people complain, the times the show is aired will change quickly.

Also, please explain how ITV will fund themselves via on-demand programs with no adverts? Would you happy to pay for a new series of a show when the previous one was FTA? And whilst you are at it, what incentive have they got to show programs with no adverts in? What are they going to do, tell advertisers they don't need them anymore because no-one wants adverts?

It may happen, but in my eyes it's not gonna happen for a long, long, long, long, long time.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Many of us want more? Don't see too many people agree with you at the minute. Happy to be corrected though.

Yeah things could change, but I simply can not see why they will. I like the odd binge watch, but I more pleased by the fact Netflix are drip feeding Better Call Saul. However, I will be seriously hacked off if someone trots into work at 12 on a Tuesday and spoils an episode of the show simply because he saw it 8 am whilst I had no way of watching at work. If that happens often enough, and too many people complain, the times the show is aired will change quickly.

Also, please explain how ITV will fund themselves via on-demand programs with no adverts? Would you happy to pay for a new series of a show when the previous one was FTA? And whilst you are at it, what incentive have they got to show programs with no adverts in? What are they going to do, tell advertisers they don't need them anymore because no-one wants adverts?

It may happen, but in my eyes it's not gonna happen for a long, long, long, long, long time.

I'm glad you are happy with your lot, Harry. But you don't have to look far to realise that many people indeed want more. For example, why are so many trying to break out of the UK restrictions using 'Unblockus' and so on? Why are so many people wingeing about Virgin Media's inability to give us access to Sky Atlantic?

Yes, it can be annoying when you are watching a series and a friend or colleague blurts out what happens next, but surely that was the situation with 'Breaking Bad' on Netflix, wasn't it? Look how many people were into that and enjoyed it immensely.

And if the streaming companies decide to bring us new programmes on a week by week basis, there is nothing to stop them doing that by popular demand.

Funding is a separate issue. It is a matter for ITV and the like to find different income streams. This is the big issue in a lot of areas with sites on the internet (eg newspapers, etc). Examples of ways around it include subscriptions and sales to providers like Netflix and on demand providers like Virgin Media. Advertising on the sites themselves or as a precurser to the programme are other alternatives.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm glad you are happy with your lot, Harry. But you don't have to look far to realise that many people indeed want more. For example, why are so many trying to break out of the UK restrictions using 'Unblockus' and so on? Why are so many people wingeing about Virgin Media's inability to give us access to Sky Atlantic?

Yes, it can be annoying when you are watching a series and a friend or colleague blurts out what happens next, but surely that was the situation with 'Breaking Bad' on Netflix, wasn't it? Look how many people were into that and enjoyed it immensely.

And if the streaming companies decide to bring us new programmes on a week by week basis, there is nothing to stop them doing that by popular demand.

Yeah people want more (i.e. Atlantic), but I thought this was a discussion about the future of linear tv channels and how you would prefer to have the same shows on linear TV available advert free and that you want to be watch them at any given time ahead of it's scheduled showing on linear TV? Have I missed something in the way the discussion has developed over the weeks?

BTW, it's not just VM don't get access to Atlantic. You can hardly blame them if no-one else is prepared to what Sky apparently ask for.
Ironically, if VM ever did get SA (hugely unlikely), it will be a recordable linear channel with no real need for a streaming service, as you can simply record the linear broadcast. Odd you mention that when you can get it as a streaming service via Now TV!!!!!

Yup, that is a fair point about Breaking Bad etc, consider that point retracted.

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:20 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm glad you are happy with your lot, Harry. But you don't have to look far to realise that many people indeed want more. For example, why are so many trying to break out of the UK restrictions using 'Unblockus' and so on? Why are so many people wingeing about Virgin Media's inability to give us access to Sky Atlantic?

Yes, it can be annoying when you are watching a series and a friend or colleague blurts out what happens next, but surely that was the situation with 'Breaking Bad' on Netflix, wasn't it? Look how many people were into that and enjoyed it immensely.

And if the streaming companies decide to bring us new programmes on a week by week basis, there is nothing to stop them doing that by popular demand.

Funding is a separate issue. It is a matter for ITV and the like to find different income streams. This is the big issue in a lot of areas with sites on the internet (eg newspapers, etc). Examples of ways around it include subscriptions and sales to providers like Netflix and on demand providers like Virgin Media. Advertising on the sites themselves or as a precurser to the programme are other alternatives.

Lets say you can't afford pay TV, how would you pay extra to watch shows that are currently FTA on ITV? Why should the less well off have to miss out on FTA programs? LOL, so instead of adverts during the show, you will be happy to sit through the same amount of adverts at the beginning of a show and/or be bombarded with them on a webpage. Rather defeats the object, surely

Edit, why should ITV have to find alternative funding? It is working pretty well for them as it is currently.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Yeah people want more (i.e. Atlantic), but I thought this was a discussion about the future of linear tv channels and how you would prefer to have the same shows on linear TV available advert free and that you want to be watch them at any given time ahead of it's scheduled showing on linear TV? Have I missed something in the way the discussion has developed over the weeks?

BTW, it's not just VM don't get access to Atlantic. You can hardly blame them if no-one else is prepared to what Sky apparently ask for.
Ironically, if VM ever did get SA (hugely unlikely), it will be a recordable linear channel with no real need for a streaming service, as you can simply record the linear broadcast. Odd you mention that when you can get it as a streaming service via Now TV!!!!!

Yup, that is a fair point about Breaking Bad etc, consider that point retracted.

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:20 ----------



Lets say you can't afford pay TV, how would you pay extra to watch shows that are currently FTA on ITV? Why should the less well off have to miss out on FTA programs? LOL, so instead of adverts during the show, you will be happy to sit through the same amount of adverts at the beginning of a show and/or be bombarded with them on a webpage. Rather defeats the object, surely

Edit, why should ITV have to find alternative funding? It is working pretty well for them as it is currently.

A number of points here, but I'll be brief:

1. Yes, the discussion is how linear TV may be withdrawn or reduced in the future to be replaced by streaming services. However, this does not prevent discussions arising from that.

2. Yes, advert free, but realistically, ads will always be present. I'd be happy fast forwarding through them or having two or three at the beginning of a streaming session, but not interrupted as we have to put up with now on the commercial channels.

3. I'm not blaming VM for not being able to get Sky Atlantic. I blame Sky for that, as most of us on here do.

4. I don't think most people want to access their programmes from a whole range of equipment. Far better to have it on just one box. Now TV doesn't work for me at present as I've mentioned before.

5. As far as free TV is concerned, we currently have to pay for the TV licence. If people only paid for what they watched (rather than be compulsorily charged for channels they may not watch), it would not necessarily be more expensive. Have you ever thought about what it would cost you if you only paid for the programmes you watched? I'd save a fortune on Sky Movies for a start!

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

5. As far as free TV is concerned, we currently have to pay for the TV licence. If people only paid for what they watched (rather than be compulsorily charged for channels they may not watch), it would not necessarily be more expensive. Have you ever thought about what it would cost you if you only paid for the programmes you watched? I'd save a fortune on Sky Movies for a start!

And how would that work for Freeview commercial channels? Not buy any of the products advertised in the programmes that you don't watch? Now there's a logistical conundrum

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

And how would that work for Freeview commercial channels? Not buy any of the products advertised in the programmes that you don't watch? Now there's a logistical conundrum

Not sure what you mean, but I think the number of TV channels will reduce over time and eventually go altogether.

I think in the future you will just pay for what you watch, with a choice of subscription and/or pay per view. Commercial broadcasters are pretty unanimous in pleading that the TV licence system is out of date.

When you compare the instant access to the programmes you want to see with the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime, with the tiresome wait for the programme you want to see on broadcast TV and those interminable advertisements, I think that most people, in time, will come to accept the inevitable.

I acknowledge I could well be wrong on the 10 years time span, but come it will, I'm convinced of that. Of course something even more startling may develop in the meantime which none of us have even contemplated!

[muppetman11]

For someone who champions On Demand almost daily I find it strange your so against a decent streaming device what offers you all the services you want.

Let's be honest whilst the TIVO is an ok PVR its far from the complete product if streaming is your main interest.

[tweetiepooh]

Where dear old Auntie should be using the license fee is to take more chances, they can't be overly "silly" but they should be able to make/commission new programming from "unproven" sources. Where they are going seems to be more of the same old safe stuff that everyone else makes or has been around long enough to establish a following. Commercial channels have less opportunity for that and with advertising spread thinly programme makers have to be more popular minded too.

Then, as with politics, you have to look at a long picture. What if in the future there is only pay to view and (government) propaganda? Who will take chances making a programme that may not "sell"? How does "minority" programming get produced and broadcast? Who pays?

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

A number of points here, but I'll be brief:

1. Yes, the discussion is how linear TV may be withdrawn or reduced in the future to be replaced by streaming services. However, this does not prevent discussions arising from that.

True, but that was not part of discussion before hand. Atlantic is a linear channel you clearly want. Are you saying VM should just get the Now TV app instead of Atlantic? By your argument getting Atlantic will, in future, be pointless because it may be withdrawn (along with a host of other channels) sooner than people may think. Why not just tr and get us the app and force those who want it to pay for the content?!?

2. Yes, advert free, but realistically, ads will always be present. I'd be happy fast forwarding through them or having two or three at the beginning of a streaming session, but not interrupted as we have to put up with now on the commercial channels.

Well that is an oxymoron in the first line, how can you want something ad free, but admit adverts will always there. Also, how do you fast forward through some of the ads online? I am frequently forced to hear/see adverts I don't want to whilst browsing websites or before trailers. Sure you get to skip the odd ad, but they are quite rare. You don't have to put with them on commercial channels, plan your viewing and recordings well enough and you won't need to see adverts. I will only have to start watching the recording of Broadchurch at 9:30 to skip the adverts.

3. I'm not blaming VM for not being able to get Sky Atlantic. I blame Sky for that, as most of us on here do.

Fair enough, I obviously misread your statement.

4. I don't think most people want to access their programmes from a whole range of equipment. Far better to have it on just one box. Now TV doesn't work for me at present as I've mentioned before.

True, I don't, but that is not an option currently

5. As far as free TV is concerned, we currently have to pay for the TV licence. If people only paid for what they watched (rather than be compulsorily charged for channels they may not watch), it would not necessarily be more expensive. Have you ever thought about what it would cost you if you only paid for the programmes you watched? I'd save a fortune on Sky Movies for a start!

I never said TV was free, I said it was FTA. How are some people going to pay extra for shows if they simply can not afford to? Lets say a series of CSI lasts 12 episodes (I have no idea how many it is) and each episode costs roughly £1.90 ()like it is an amazon/itunes). People would have to find roughly £6-£7 a month for just one show. Times that by 3 shows and you are looking at £20 a month. Many people simply can not afford that, or simply don't care enough, to pay that sort of money.

With regards Sky Movies, you could probably save quite a bit of money by going down the love film by post route. You can have two discs out at a time and if you are careful enough you can always one disc in the house and another in post coming to you. I appreciate it is a bit more inconvenient, but you get all the latest release long before Sky Movies and you get a much bigger selection of movies too.

---------- Post added at 17:19 ---------- Previous post was at 17:16 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not sure what you mean, but I think the number of TV channels will reduce over time and eventually go altogether.

I think in the future you will just pay for what you watch, with a choice of subscription and/or pay per view. Commercial broadcasters are pretty unanimous in pleading that the TV licence system is out of date.

When you compare the instant access to the programmes you want to see with the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime, with the tiresome wait for the programme you want to see on broadcast TV and those interminable advertisements, I think that most people, in time, will come to accept the inevitable.

I acknowledge I could well be wrong on the 10 years time span, but come it will, I'm convinced of that. Of course something even more startling may develop in the meantime which none of us have even contemplated!

Again, you are bringing up adverts, but you have just posted saying they will always be around.

I don't think many have disagreed things will change, It is just that they don't think it will happen the way you think it may happen.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not sure what you mean,

You're hung up on the licence fee for the BBC but fail to understand that you are paying a similar fee for commercial channels via paying for a products advertising cost.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

You're hung up on the licence fee for the BBC but fail to understand that you are paying a similar fee for commercial channels via paying for a products advertising cost.

i'm not hung up about anything. I'm simply speculating on what is to come.

I mentioned the licence fee because by abolishing it, those who cannot afford a subscription now would have some money to use for streaming services instead.

Your reference to where the money comes from initially to fund commercial channels is not relevant to this argument because there will always be a proportion of money put into budgets to fund advertising.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

A number of points here, but I'll be brief:

1. Yes, the discussion is how linear TV may be withdrawn or reduced in the future to be replaced by streaming services. However, this does not prevent discussions arising from that.

True, but that was not part of discussion before hand. Atlantic is a linear channel you clearly want. Are you saying VM should just get the Now TV app instead of Atlantic? By your argument getting Atlantic will, in future, be pointless because it may be withdrawn (along with a host of other channels) sooner than people may think. Why not just tr and get us the app and force those who want it to pay for the content?!?

2. Yes, advert free, but realistically, ads will always be present. I'd be happy fast forwarding through them or having two or three at the beginning of a streaming session, but not interrupted as we have to put up with now on the commercial channels.

Well that is an oxymoron in the first line, how can you want something ad free, but admit adverts will always there. Also, how do you fast forward through some of the ads online? I am frequently forced to hear/see adverts I don't want to whilst browsing websites or before trailers. Sure you get to skip the odd ad, but they are quite rare. You don't have to put with them on commercial channels, plan your viewing and recordings well enough and you won't need to see adverts. I will only have to start watching the recording of Broadchurch at 9:30 to skip the adverts.

3. I'm not blaming VM for not being able to get Sky Atlantic. I blame Sky for that, as most of us on here do.

Fair enough, I obviously misread your statement.

4. I don't think most people want to access their programmes from a whole range of equipment. Far better to have it on just one box. Now TV doesn't work for me at present as I've mentioned before.

True, I don't, but that is not an option currently

5. As far as free TV is concerned, we currently have to pay for the TV licence. If people only paid for what they watched (rather than be compulsorily charged for channels they may not watch), it would not necessarily be more expensive. Have you ever thought about what it would cost you if you only paid for the programmes you watched? I'd save a fortune on Sky Movies for a start!

I never said TV was free, I said it was FTA. How are some people going to pay extra for shows if they simply can not afford to? Lets say a series of CSI lasts 12 episodes (I have no idea how many it is) and each episode costs roughly £1.90 ()like it is an amazon/itunes). People would have to find roughly £6-£7 a month for just one show. Times that by 3 shows and you are looking at £20 a month. Many people simply can not afford that, or simply don't care enough, to pay that sort of money.

With regards Sky Movies, you could probably save quite a bit of money by going down the love film by post route. You can have two discs out at a time and if you are careful enough you can always one disc in the house and another in post coming to you. I appreciate it is a bit more inconvenient, but you get all the latest release long before Sky Movies and you get a much bigger selection of movies too.

---------- Post added at 17:19 ---------- Previous post was at 17:16 ----------



Again, you are bringing up adverts, but you have just posted saying they will always be around.

I don't think many have disagreed things will change, It is just that they don't think it will happen the way you think it may happen.

1. It's the programmes on Sky Atlantic that I want, not necessarily the channel.

2. My complaint about the adverts related to the fact that they are so prevalent on our commercial TV stations. I could put up with two or three at the beginning of a programme, as long as the programme was not interrupted, and I could put up with adverts adorning a list of what's available on the content provider's site. Currently, our access on TV to Netflix is advert free.

3/4. We agree!

5. It's rather expensive that way. It is more likely that people will subscribe to one or more content providers, which is not very expensive. As I said, those with limited budgets would simply pick their content using the licence fee money that would no longer be payable (under my scenario). Netflix costs rather less than £20 a month! In the future there will be content providers that provide a full range of entertainment, including news, sport, films and TV series, for less than we currently pay on our TV licence, which is double the current Netflix fee. As for the Lovefilm thing, I'm so over DVDs! Streaming is much simpler (as long as the technology works).

By the way, and once again, I'm not advocating a personal preference for ditching linear channels. I simply think that in time (how long may be debatable), people will start to see that streaming is a better solution to quality viewing than broadcast TV.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:24 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

For someone who champions On Demand almost daily I find it strange your so against a decent streaming device what offers you all the services you want.

Let's be honest whilst the TIVO is an ok PVR its far from the complete product if streaming is your main interest.

Can you actually name a streaming device that shows all the streaming video providers? At the moment, from what I can see, if you want Netflix, you can't have Amazon Prime, and vice versa.

Anyway, as I keep saying, I want all of this on one device. For me, the TIVO is the most appropriate device to add these streaming services.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Can you actually name a streaming device that shows all the streaming video providers? At the moment, from what I can see, if you want Netflix, you can't have Amazon Prime, and vice versa.

.

The best that I have found, excluding games consoles (which are expensive), are LG Bluray players which have Netflix, Amazon and Now TV.

I mentioned the licence fee because by abolishing it, those who cannot afford a subscription now would have some money to use for streaming services instead.

Are you really serious? The vast majority of the population, based on viewing figures, would lose far more than they gain.

[muppetman11]

Netflix and Amazon instant are available on Amazon Fire TV , Samsung Smart Blu Ray players which also include all the catch up apps.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

In the future there will be content providers that provide a full range of entertainment, including news, sport, films and TV series, for less than we currently pay on our TV licence, .

Amazon plus Netflix on there own cost more per month than the licence fee. How are you going to include these extra services?

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

i'm not hung up about anything. I'm simply speculating on what is to come.

I mentioned the licence fee because by abolishing it, those who cannot afford a subscription now would have some money to use for streaming services instead.

Your reference to where the money comes from initially to fund commercial channels is not relevant to this argument because there will always be a proportion of money put into budgets to fund advertising.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------



1. It's the programmes on Sky Atlantic that I want, not necessarily the channel.

2. My complaint about the adverts related to the fact that they are so prevalent on our commercial TV stations. I could put up with two or three at the beginning of a programme, as long as the programme was not interrupted, and I could put up with adverts adorning a list of what's available on the content provider's site. Currently, our access on TV to Netflix is advert free.

3/4. We agree!

5. It's rather expensive that way. It is more likely that people will subscribe to one or more content providers, which is not very expensive. As I said, those with limited budgets would simply pick their content using the licence fee money that would no longer be payable (under my scenario). Netflix costs rather less than £20 a month! In the future there will be content providers that provide a full range of entertainment, including news, sport, films and TV series, for less than we currently pay on our TV licence, which is double the current Netflix fee. As for the Lovefilm thing, I'm so over DVDs! Streaming is much simpler (as long as the technology works).

By the way, and once again, I'm not advocating a personal preference for ditching linear channels. I simply think that in time (how long may be debatable), people will start to see that streaming is a better solution to quality viewing than broadcast TV.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:24 ----------

Can you actually name a streaming device that shows all the streaming video providers? At the moment, from what I can see, if you want Netflix, you can't have Amazon Prime, etc.

Anyway, as I keep saying, I want all of this on one device.

Your argument regarding advertising budgets, is flawed. Companies will never be able to afford advertising without the money added into the price of the product. All monies from sales are syphoned off into various difference pots, and whatever is left is then profit. If there was not a pot for advertising (before profits) the ad budget would come out of the profit. No business could sustain itself operating this way. If a tv company raised the ad fees each year, the shop would be ruined in a few short years.
Put simply, the ad money comes from us when we buy products.

With regards, commercial adverts, again I will ask why would you not just manage your viewing schedule?

With regards doing away with the license fee, how are the BBC supposed to operate?!? Goodbye MOTD etc, it was nice knowing you. How would I be able keep up to date with The Ashes by listening to the wonderful TMS commentary. Bear in mind I refuse to pay for SS and would not want to pay a fee for the awful highlights from Channel 5? What if I like original British programs, and did not want to watch repeats on Netflix etc or American shows?

Doing away with the license fee would indeed free up money for Netflix and Amazon (or any two other streaming services) only. How are people going to afford anything else if they can still only afford two services though? Their TV watching will be pretty limited bearing in mind there will be no BBC, ITV, C4, C5 channels broadcasting FTA because the license fee will no longer be around and people will have to pay for ITV etc, and we will still be paying for the adverts in front of the shows and on the websites. So in my eyes, your thoughts involve people spending considerably more money than they do now, for much, much less. You may be right, it may happen, but how do the less well off survive in this market?

It's nothing personal OB, I do disagree that streaming will become better than linear tv in my lifetime though. I just enjoy a good debate - as you have probably figured out by now..

Fair enough with the DVD's I love the service though. Cheap, effective and better stability than streaming, with much better insight into the films. I tried renting Gone Girl Saturday night, but surprise, surprise there was an issue with on demand. How in this day and age, in a strong VM area, can I have an issue with on demand, esp. with the years of experience VM have had delivering on demand services? Madness.

No, I don't think you can get the lot on one device.