VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[muppetman11]

To be honest I've loved original shows from both Netflix and Sky that said I've also hated original shows from both services.

[OLD BOY]

According to this report, linear TV is likely to survive the short to medium term but 'longer-term, it will essentially be compulsory for DTH and other pay-TV platforms to offer OTT as a supplementary service, to both increase retention amongst existing subscribers, and signing up new subs based on exclusive content, and effectively becoming a ‘one-stop-shop’ for content as much as feasibly possible'.

This appears to correspond with Liberty Global's view of the future.

I still think that this report understates the speed and extent of the changes that will come, and one only needs to look at what is happening in America to get a glimpse of how things will be going here within the next three to five years.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/...ikely-outcome/

Extracts

Linear satellite TV is likely to hold its own for the next few years despite the growing strength of OTT. However, in the long-term it will have to make changes.

Quoting the findings of a report by NSR entitled Linear TV via Satellite: DTH, OTT & IPTV, Satnews reports that the linear satellite TV market will see an increase of over 21,000 channels across both DTH and video distribution platforms by 2024. Indeed, the proliferation of Ultra HD, HD and SD channels, along with a limited impact from OTT platforms, will allow for this growth.

Commenting on the findings, Alan Crisp, Analyst with NSR and lead author of the report, said: “Although OTT platforms have become increasingly mature in North America, elsewhere the development of OTT platforms is in its infancy and is expected to have limited impact on traditional video platforms in the short to medium term”.

Crisp added: “Nevertheless, longer-term, it will essentially be compulsory for DTH and other pay-TV platforms to offer OTT as a supplementary service, to both increase retention amongst existing subscribers, and signing up new subs based on exclusive content, and effectively becoming a ‘one-stop-shop’ for content as much as feasibly possible”.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Thanks Theone, that is quite interesting. You are certainly making a decent saving, but not everyone will be fortunate enough to get the saving you do on Sony Vue so I guess that makes the cost you pay an unfair guidline to someone like me who would have to pay full whack for Sony TV.
Kudos for the getting the discount though, it's nice to see loyalty rewarded, even if it not is directly from the company! Are the channels you receive all HD?

The vpn is an option I am choosing not to take currently, so in that respect more fool me for not using it.

The following paragraphs are not aimed at you, they are there simply to aid discussion, if anyone wants to continue with it.
Please feel free to respond though, you know much more about this than I do!!

I have just had a look at Playstation Vue and sling and as far as I can see, they both offer linear TV stations over the Internet. Currently they appear to be far from killing off linear TV, simply offering linear channels over the web. So in my eyes, this strengthens the case for linear channels surviving for many years. It might mean the end of the set top box in 10 years, but I don't see it killing linear TV.

I have also seen the pricing and it seems that I would have to pay $70 for the top package on Sony TV and that alone is considerably more than my TV subscription on VM.

Based on all the companies that could potentially offer a streaming service, I fear greatly for the potential costs of watching TV via streaming on demand packages, if it ever happens. I will stick having it all in one from one supplier, if possible!

Given the range of material available on both Netflix and Amazon, both of which are available for £5.99 per month, I struggle to understand why you think it would be so expensive to have a good range of programmes, Harry.

To be honest, most of the best programmes are on terrestrial TV at the moment, and many of them quickly migrate to Netflix or Amazon.

When you look at the price of the existing pay TV packages, there aren't an awful lot of programmes in there which compete effectively with terrestrial, are there?

When I review my recordings, I am surprised at how few have emanated from Sky or Fox (Sky Movies being the exception). There are some programmes on those channels that we do watch, such as The Walking Dead, but they are so few, it makes me wonder about the value for money we are getting.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

as a supplementary service

Exactly!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Exactly!

Sorry, Spiderplant, I had just edited my post when I saw your response.

The only reason I say that change will come quicker is that viewers will tire of having to sit through endless commercials and wait for their programmes to be scheduled before they can watch them.

The younger generation will adapt very quickly to the rapidly increasing choice we will get from streaming services and the linear channels will no longer be viable as advertising revenue declines.

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry, Spiderplant, I had just edited my post when I saw your response.

The only reason I say that change will come quicker is that viewers will tire of having to sit through endless commercials and wait for their programmes to be scheduled before they can watch them.

The younger generation will adapt very quickly to the rapidly increasing choice we will get from streaming services and the linear channels will no longer be viable as advertising revenue declines.

But already have to with 4OD, the only way around it I have is to record linear and then watch it. you cant do this with 4OD off the shelf.

It stills needs to be paid for, whether is linear schedule with commercials, subscription with/without commercials and/or product placement, or goverement via taxes somoen needs to pick up the bill.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

But already have to with 4OD, the only way around it I have is to record linear and then watch it. you cant do this with 4OD off the shelf.

It stills needs to be paid for, whether is linear schedule with commercials, subscription with/without commercials and/or product placement, or goverement via taxes somoen needs to pick up the bill.

But for how much longer will people be content with viewing via broadcast channels? That is really the question. Unless the broadcasters can find a way of adjusting their working models and still make a profit, their days are numbered.

People won't watch OD either if they cannot escape the constant stream of commercials.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

According to this report, linear TV is likely to survive the short to medium term but 'longer-term, it will essentially be compulsory for DTH and other pay-TV platforms to offer OTT as a supplementary service, to both increase retention amongst existing subscribers, and signing up new subs based on exclusive content, and effectively becoming a ‘one-stop-shop’ for content as much as feasibly possible'.

This appears to correspond with Liberty Global's view of the future.

I still think that this report understates the speed and extent of the changes that will come, and one only needs to look at what is happening in America to get a glimpse of how things will be going here within the next three to five years.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/...ikely-outcome/

Extracts

Linear satellite TV is likely to hold its own for the next few years despite the growing strength of OTT. However, in the long-term it will have to make changes.

Quoting the findings of a report by NSR entitled Linear TV via Satellite: DTH, OTT & IPTV, Satnews reports that the linear satellite TV market will see an increase of over 21,000 channels across both DTH and video distribution platforms by 2024. Indeed, the proliferation of Ultra HD, HD and SD channels, along with a limited impact from OTT platforms, will allow for this growth.

Commenting on the findings, Alan Crisp, Analyst with NSR and lead author of the report, said: “Although OTT platforms have become increasingly mature in North America, elsewhere the development of OTT platforms is in its infancy and is expected to have limited impact on traditional video platforms in the short to medium term”.

Crisp added: “Nevertheless, longer-term, it will essentially be compulsory for DTH and other pay-TV platforms to offer OTT as a supplementary service, to both increase retention amongst existing subscribers, and signing up new subs based on exclusive content, and effectively becoming a ‘one-stop-shop’ for content as much as feasibly possible”.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Given the range of material available on both Netflix and Amazon, both of which are available for £5.99 per month, I struggle to understand why you think it would be so expensive to have a good range of programmes, Harry.

To be honest, most of the best programmes are on terrestrial TV at the moment, and many of them quickly migrate to Netflix or Amazon.

When you look at the price of the existing pay TV packages, there aren't an awful lot of programmes in there which compete effectively with terrestrial, are there?

When I review my recordings, I am surprised at how few have emanated from Sky or Fox (Sky Movies being the exception). There are some programmes on those channels that we do watch, such as The Walking Dead, but they are so few, it makes me wonder about the value for money we are getting.

So, you are now posting what many others have been saying all along. that linear tv will continue and the OD services will still be OTT. It's taken a long time for you to get here, but I'm glad you are now here. No-one has denied changes will happen, just simply not to extent you suggested.

Nothing is going to change drastically in the next 3 to 5 years either. Other than Sky etc offering more apps on their STB, which they are doing anyway.

The cost side of things was simply down to theoretically thinking that if, for example, Fox took themselves out of linear TV, and charged £5.99 for their content, I am having to pay an extra £5.99 just to watch The Walking Dead. I imagine they would remove any of their content from Netflix, Amazon et al as well, thus forcing my hand further to pay more if I wanted to watch the same content I used to get in my previous package. Imagine if all content makers did the same and charged the same as HBO GO in the States for example. Will cost a fortune.

Yeah, many of the best shows are on terrestrial, being watched on linear tv with out any major outcry from the TV watching nation demanding change. People do not wait for them to migrate to Netflix before watching them.

Yup pay tv is a bit of a rip off, but that is the way it works. If you want the content from the channels (regardless of how much you actually watch) you pay through the nose for it.

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But for how much longer will people be content with viewing via broadcast channels? That is really the question. Unless the broadcasters can find a way of adjusting their working models and still make a profit, their days are numbered.

People won't watch OD either if they cannot escape the constant stream of commercials.

Correct!!!!!! So they will simply revert to linear TV so they can record shows and fast forward through the adverts.:b anghead:

[theone2k10]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But for how much longer will people be content with viewing via broadcast channels? That is really the question. Unless the broadcasters can find a way of adjusting their working models and still make a profit, their days are numbered.

People won't watch OD either if they cannot escape the constant stream of commercials.

You can't with USA services there are 5 ad breaks to a hour 3 to 30 minutes and that is on demand programmes.
Adblock+ will get around most but there are still some such as hulu, cbs and now cw who will not let you view until you disable your adblocker, 4od and itv are the same.
Hulu however will play the adverts regardless of you adblocker being enabled or not.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

So, you are now posting what many others have been saying all along. that linear tv will continue and the OD services will still be OTT. It's taken a long time for you to get here, but I'm glad you are now here. No-one has denied changes will happen, just simply not to extent you suggested.

Nothing is going to change drastically in the next 3 to 5 years either. Other than Sky etc offering more apps on their STB, which they are doing anyway.

The cost side of things was simply down to theoretically thinking that if, for example, Fox took themselves out of linear TV, and charged £5.99 for their content, I am having to pay an extra £5.99 just to watch The Walking Dead. I imagine they would remove any of their content from Netflix, Amazon et al as well, thus forcing my hand further to pay more if I wanted to watch the same content I used to get in my previous package. Imagine if all content makers did the same and charged the same as HBO GO in the States for example. Will cost a fortune.

Yeah, many of the best shows are on terrestrial, being watched on linear tv with out any major outcry from the TV watching nation demanding change. People do not wait for them to migrate to Netflix before watching them.

Yup pay tv is a bit of a rip off, but that is the way it works. If you want the content from the channels (regardless of how much you actually watch) you pay through the nose for it.

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------



Correct!!!!!! So they will simply revert to linear TV so they can record shows and fast forward through the adverts.:b anghead:

How do you know? I tend to agree with OB, a lot of the stat's that he has posted seem to point to the opposite of what you are saying!

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

How do you know? I tend to agree with OB, a lot of the stat's that he has posted seem to point to the opposite of what you are saying!

Given that the post I replied to, from OB, stated that linear tv will fine in the short to medium term, and will also still be about in the long term as long they offer supplementary services (which some already do) I don't see anything changing massively in 3-5 years.

No one knows what is going to happen in 3-5 years time.

I have never thought that linear TV will disappear like OB suggests though, and his post seemed to back up my thought process.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

How do you know?

Nobody knows, but history is a good guide. Nothing has ever changed that drastically in TV in any other 3-5 year period. Why would this be any different?

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But for how much longer will people be content with viewing via broadcast channels? That is really the question. Unless the broadcasters can find a way of adjusting their working models and still make a profit, their days are numbered.

People won't watch OD either if they cannot escape the constant stream of commercials.

I think the questioning is rather how much people are prepared to pay for the flexibility. Commercial helps keeps the cost down and unless an ambramovich style person self funds it (and approved by regulator so doubtful) they are here for very very long time. Take ITV as example

Linear easiest option free but with adverts and not on demand
Could record linear but have to wait and then fast forward
ITV player, on demand but adverts and free
Or £3.99 a month no adverts but on demand

even YouTube puts an adverts at the beginning, spotify free has adverts.

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

They've also been throwing out nowtv offers i had a email today offering me entertainment pass for £2p/m for 6 months.

There was me thinking the £3.49 for 3 months i got was a good offer.

Still when that runs out and GOT is finished i think i'm done with it.
I keep looking to see whats on SA but nothing grabs me. They have House on there all this afternoon.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

So, you are now posting what many others have been saying all along. that linear tv will continue and the OD services will still be OTT. It's taken a long time for you to get here, but I'm glad you are now here. No-one has denied changes will happen, just simply not to extent you suggested.

Nothing is going to change drastically in the next 3 to 5 years either. Other than Sky etc offering more apps on their STB, which they are doing anyway.

The cost side of things was simply down to theoretically thinking that if, for example, Fox took themselves out of linear TV, and charged £5.99 for their content, I am having to pay an extra £5.99 just to watch The Walking Dead. I imagine they would remove any of their content from Netflix, Amazon et al as well, thus forcing my hand further to pay more if I wanted to watch the same content I used to get in my previous package. Imagine if all content makers did the same and charged the same as HBO GO in the States for example. Will cost a fortune.

Yeah, many of the best shows are on terrestrial, being watched on linear tv with out any major outcry from the TV watching nation demanding change. People do not wait for them to migrate to Netflix before watching them.

Yup pay tv is a bit of a rip off, but that is the way it works. If you want the content from the channels (regardless of how much you actually watch) you pay through the nose for it.

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------



Correct!!!!!! So they will simply revert to linear TV so they can record shows and fast forward through the adverts.:b anghead:

Harry, I posted that article to indicate how some industry experts were thinking about this, which does not necessarily mean that I agree with the views expressed. I have not said anywhere that broadcast channels will disappear in the short or medium term. It is the longer term that we are discussing, and honestly, I really cannot see how the existing model will survive unless innovative ways of generating sufficient (alternative) income streams are found.

Yes, if the worst came to the worst, we could have all the existing broadcasters providing their programmes via their own streaming services, but they know that people aren't going to subscribe to them all, and this will restrict the number of people watching. So they are more likely to sell their programmes on to the likes of Netflix or Amazon, so you could end up saving money rather than spending more.

There is a fault in your argument about people recording the TV programmes from linear TV rather than watch OD filled with commercials. If everyone did that, why would the advertisers place their ads with the TV stations in the first place?

There are sufficient people still religiously watching advertisements at the present time for this not to be a problem. However, I have outlined in this thread why I don't believe that this comfortable situation will continue.

The problem is OB, that earlier in this thread you indicated that you think the longer term is something like 10 years.

In the UK, this simply will not happen, if only because the BBC's charter is renewed every 10 years, and the continued existence of the BBC until at least 2026 will perpetuate linear TV as a viable content delivery method.

There is no doubt that 10 years from now, all the linear broadcasters will have a sophisticated on-demand offering, however there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that an imminent end to linear broadcast will be on the cards.

---------- Post added at 14:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:57 ----------

Oh and by the way, if our Internet usage continues to increase at its current rate, not only will we saturate the current data infrastructure within 8 years, that infrastructure will require the UK's *entire* current electricity generating capacity to keep it lit, within about 20 years.

Both those timescales are worrying, because they challenge the usual pace of expansion in both cases.

There simply *will*not*be* a complete switch to on-demand TV for the foreseeable future, because if at any point in the foreseeable future we were to try to do it, we would find we had neither the network capacity nor the electricity generating capacity to sustain it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...engineers.html