VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Khenryashley

Are viewing figures counted on the average people per household or per household.

It's a count of people. Have a look on barb.co.uk if you want to know how they do it.

[Khenryashley]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

It's a count of people. Have a look on barb.co.uk if you want to know how they do it.

Cheers. Will have a look

[1andrew1]

"Despite the continued presence of Netflix and other over-the-top services – if taken as an operator Netflix would now be Europe’s third largest operator behind Liberty Global and Sky Europe – pay-TV continues grow with little talk of cord cutting as is the case in the United States. “The appetite for pay-TV services is increasing quite dramatically,” said Keen. “The quality of services, technically and content-wise has been increasing dramatically. People want to see it and have been taking out the subs.”
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...e-opportunity/

US is a very expensive TV market which does not enjoy the same competition as European markets do. The average monthly revenue per user in the US is $86 v $29 in Europe. It is the high cost in the US that is driving cord-cutting and this is not a feature of European markets.
I'm not however saying that the live TV/on-demand TV ratio is not moving of on-demand content; it is.

[heero_yuy]

If the upcoming audience is anything to judge by then linear channels should be worried:

KIDS spend more time online than watching telly for the first time, a report claims.

Five to 16-year-olds are on smartphones, tablets and laptops for three hours a day on average.

They spend only 2.1 hours in front of the TV, the annual survey by Childwise found. They now watch programmes and movies using online catch-up services such as BBC iPlayer and streaming services including Netflix.

Half watch video-sharing site YouTube every day. Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook are also popular.

Linky

[denphone]

We have had this argument before with a well respected CF member and Linear channels are here to stay and will still be around when l have gone the way of the dodo despite what the doomsayers of CF say.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

We have had this argument before with a well respected CF member and Linear channels are here to stay and will still be around when l have gone the way of the dodo despite what the doomsayers of CF say.

But on what basis do you say that, Den? Your view of the future is only going to happen if most viewers choose to keep watching broadcast linear TV much as they do now, and the quickening trend to other means of viewing (on demand/streaming services) is arrested sharply in the very near future.

In the end, you have to look at the economics of it all, as well as the growing impatience of people who are demanding instant gratification and will not wait for their programmes of choice to show up on the TV schedules and have their viewing interrupted by commercials.

Maybe that decline could be mitigated by channels reorganising how they broadcast their programmes. If they did this 'cinema style' by showing uninterrupted and better quality home grown material (because all the the good stuff they could procure would be snapped up by the streaming services), and having these good programmes followed by commercials, shorter programmes, trailers, more commercials and then another good quality programme, this might keep things going. I do think people are more tolerant of commercials between programmes rather than interrupting programmes.

Even then, I think the prevalence of broadcast linear viewing will be much less in the future, and I seriously doubt whether such broadcasting will be economically viable in a couple of decades.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

You're simply unable - or unwilling - to deal with the scale of the problem.

None of these experts foresees a crippling problem, because nobody who knows anything about the subject, seriously believes the UK will have switched off broadcast TV and transferred our entire news and entertainment provision to IP-based services, not now, nor in 10 or 20 years time.

Throughout this thread you have been predicting the end of linear TV based on nothing more than your fondness for the alternative.

Others have pointed out to you that:

- a linear TV schedule provides least friction for a busy consumer with limited appetite to make conscious choices;
- any live event is, and will always be, by its very nature, broadcast according to a linear schedule;
- one-way transmission by satellite or terrestrial transmitter is a vastly more efficient way of delivering high-bandwidth content to large numbers of people simultaneously. This requires scheduled broadcast, even if the end user stores transmissions (TiVo or similar) for later consumption on-demand;
- scheduled broadcast puts large numbers of people within reach of advertisers simultaneously;
- it also increases the number of simultaneous views of content, allowing for popular shows to achieve the prized "water-cooler moment" that further publicises them;
- all of which is essential, given the high cost of quality, original TV.
- and, not forgetting, the hard fact that the internet's projected future bandwidth and energy requirement is already enormous, without the added burden of putting our entire TV system onto it.

These are the facts. Nobody wants the future you keep pushing, in sufficient numbers to make it happen. On-demand streaming has its place in the mix, but that's all it will be for the foreseeable future.

Well, it's easy to be negative, Chris. You have put all of these supposed problems in the way, without it even crossing your mind that throughout history, problems preventing change have been overcome.

I find it difficult to understand why you think that 'busy people' would not want to use their limited free time to watch something worthwhile. The description you paint is of a nation of semi-comatose people watching dazed-like at any junk that is thrown at them. I sincerely hope that most of us are better than that!

You say that any live event will always be watched via broadcast TV, completely ignoring the fact that such events can be streamed live.

If you ever watch Netflix or Amazon, you will see new series advertised before they appear, just like films at the cinema. So you can still share these experiences, when they first appear, with your friends.

I could go on, but I think the trend towards streaming and on demand viewing is already towards these methods of viewing and this is set to grow substantially.

I do not doubt for one moment that the viewing figures for broadcast TV are still healthy, but existing trends should make it obvious that things cannot remain as they are for much longer.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, it's easy to be negative, Chris. You have put all of these supposed problems in the way, without it even crossing your mind that throughout history, problems preventing change have been overcome.

These "supposed problems" are facts, evidenced throughout this thread with statistics and the publicly-stated views of industry professionals. I have nether the time nor the will to collate the data again - not least because you wouldn't (or couldn't) engage with it first time round.

All you have been able to provide in response is, in effect, "something will turn up".

That's fine if all you want to do is go on feeling good about what you already believe, especially when the topic is TV because, let's face it, the world won't end however we consume our entertainment 50 years from now.

However, it's not fine in a topic-based discussion forum where the whole point of the exercise is to bring information and ideas to the topic so they can be discussed.

I find it difficult to understand

This much is true.

Did it never occur to you that at least half the "problems" with moving to 100% VOD aren't even problems? They are positive reasons *not* to make the switch, not negative reasons preventing the development of something desirable.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

If the upcoming audience is anything to judge by then linear channels should be worried:



Linky

I still don't see this as a problem. Those kids are watching programmes on their iPads/phones because they are bored. They probably don't have a telly of their own yet in their bedrooms, like many people of my generation did, and it is much cheaper for parents to pay an £8.99 for Netflix rather than fork out money for a telly in the kids room and potentially extra set top boxes and multi room subscriptions. 2 tenneagers with 1 extra box each is another £20 on a monthly bill, as opposed to a shared Netflix account.

OB, seeing as you continue to ignore everyone's opinion because it does not fit in with your plans, and still disregard Chris's well worded with decent links on the technical obstacle arguments, I will come back to the debate with this statement - which you can ignore, disregard and refute as you see fit.

I have yet to see you provide anything which shows how people are planning to overcome these technical obstacles. If you have posted them, I apologize for missing them and can you please post the links again so I can continue to make an informed opinion on this.

As these kids and teenagers get older and move out (over the next 10-20 years) no doubt they will then buy a decent TV which will still be coming with free view. Whether that is streamed or not is neither here nor there, it will still be a linear schedule. People will not stop watching linear schedules just because they are impatient and want on demand content only. Having grown up watching what will most likely become an ad laden Netflix, these kids will have watched a lot of its content and unskippable ads and could well be bored of its back catalogue. What do they do then? Binge watch the new exclusives? Awesome, that wastes a few nights. What then? Do the same with Amazon Prime? Okay, that wastes about 6 months worth of binge watched content. What then? Watch nothing because all the content from fta broadcasters or paid content provider is not available to binge watch on demand? No, they will watch what is placed in front of them.

Things may well change, but I still don't see it happening in my lifetime. There are simply too many people who are happy with the way linear tv works.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I still don't see this as a problem. Those kids are watching programmes on their iPads/phones because they are bored. They probably don't have a telly of their own yet in their bedrooms, like many people of my generation did, and it is much cheaper for parents to pay an £8.99 for Netflix rather than fork out money for a telly in the kids room and potentially extra set top boxes and multi room subscriptions. 2 tenneagers with 1 extra box each is another £20 on a monthly bill, as opposed to a shared Netflix account.

OB, seeing as you continue to ignore everyone's opinion because it does not fit in with your plans, and still disregard Chris's well worded with decent links on the technical obstacle arguments, I will come back to the debate with this statement - which you can ignore, disregard and refute as you see fit.

I have yet to see you provide anything which shows how people are planning to overcome these technical obstacles. If you have posted them, I apologize for missing them and can you please post the links again so I can continue to make an informed opinion on this.

As these kids and teenagers get older and move out (over the next 10-20 years) no doubt they will then buy a decent TV which will still be coming with free view. Whether that is streamed or not is neither here nor there, it will still be a linear schedule. People will not stop watching linear schedules just because they are impatient and want on demand content only. Having grown up watching what will most likely become an ad laden Netflix, these kids will have watched a lot of its content and unskippable ads and could well be bored of its back catalogue. What do they do then? Binge watch the new exclusives? Awesome, that wastes a few nights. What then? Do the same with Amazon Prime? Okay, that wastes about 6 months worth of binge watched content. What then? Watch nothing because all the content from fta broadcasters or paid content provider is not available to binge watch on demand? No, they will watch what is placed in front of them.

Things may well change, but I still don't see it happening in my lifetime. There are simply too many people who are happy with the way linear tv works.

These are not my 'plans', Harry, and contrary to what some have been saying on here, the end of linear TV is not 'what I want'. It is mere speculation on my part, inviting discussion, and it is based on what I see as a drift away from conventional method of viewing, with the growth of streaming services.

I'm sure that you are at least half right about existing habits of teenagers, but when they settle down and have their own TV, I can't see them putting up with how linear TV works with all those tempting on demand alternatives present for the taking (and decidedly cheaper than linear premium TV channels). As I have said before, the margin of profitability of these channels is tight, and it would not take a huge audience drop to reduce advertising revenues and force channels off the air.

I have listened to the detractors from this argument, and Chris has made some good points about existing levels of capacity. I am not sufficiently technical to be able to rebuff some of the points he makes but what I can say with a fair degree of confidence is that a way through those problems will be found.

You can criticise me if you like for not coming up with a full technical resume on how the problems Chris mentions can be overcome, but frankly, that is not up to me. This is a discussion, not a business plan! I note, Harry, that you continue to tell us that Netflix will be sporting commercials, despite direct denials by the company, and so your arguments on this subject, with respect, are not so robust either.

In relation to content, I think it is becoming obvious that in years to come, the streaming companies will be picking up exclusively the best programmes available from the US and elsewhere, leaving nothing but the scraps for the broadcast linear channels. So they will have to make or commission more programmes of their own. There are financial implications there that the broadcasters will have to assess very carefully.

Now some will say that Sky's new deal with Showtime proves the opposite, but of course it does not. We are not talking about the now, we are talking about the future. Ultimately, it is the companies with the global reach that will outbid the likes of Sky and our terrestrials. Sky's exclusive deal with Showtime may well prove to be one of its last.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

These are not my 'plans', Harry, and contrary to what some have been saying on here, the end of linear TV is not 'what I want'. It is mere speculation on my part, inviting discussion, and it is based on what I see as a drift away from conventional method of viewing, with the growth of streaming services.

I'm sure that you are at least half right about existing habits of teenagers, but when they settle down and have their own TV, I can't see them putting up with how linear TV works with all those tempting on demand alternatives present for the taking (and decidedly cheaper than linear premium TV channels). As I have said before, the margin of profitability of these channels is tight, and it would not take a huge audience drop to reduce advertising revenues and force channels off the air.

I have listened to the detractors from this argument, and Chris has made some good points about existing levels of capacity. I am not sufficiently technical to be able to rebuff some of the points he makes but what I can say with a fair degree of confidence is that a way through those problems will be found.

You can criticise me if you like for not coming up with a full technical resume on how the problems Chris mentions can be overcome, but frankly, that is not up to me. This is a discussion, not a business plan! I note, Harry, that you continue to tell us that Netflix will be sporting commercials, despite direct denials by the company, and so your arguments on this subject, with respect, are not so robust either.

In relation to content, I think it is becoming obvious that in years to come, the streaming companies will be picking up exclusively the best programmes available from the US and elsewhere, leaving nothing but the scraps for the broadcast linear channels. So they will have to make or commission more programmes of their own. There are financial implications there that the broadcasters will have to assess very carefully.

Now some will say that Sky's new deal with Showtime proves the opposite, but of course it does not. We are not talking about the now, we are talking about the future. Ultimately, it is the companies with the global reach that will outbid the likes of Sky and our terrestrials. Sky's exclusive deal with Showtime may well prove to be one of its last.

Well said OB..............

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

These are not my 'plans', Harry, and contrary to what some have been saying on here, the end of linear TV is not 'what I want'. It is mere speculation on my part, inviting discussion, and it is based on what I see as a drift away from conventional method of viewing, with the growth of streaming services.

I'm sure that you are at least half right about existing habits of teenagers, but when they settle down and have their own TV, I can't see them putting up with how linear TV works with all those tempting on demand alternatives present for the taking (and decidedly cheaper than linear premium TV channels). As I have said before, the margin of profitability of these channels is tight, and it would not take a huge audience drop to reduce advertising revenues and force channels off the air.

I have listened to the detractors from this argument, and Chris has made some good points about existing levels of capacity. I am not sufficiently technical to be able to rebuff some of the points he makes but what I can say with a fair degree of confidence is that a way through those problems will be found.

You can criticise me if you like for not coming up with a full technical resume on how the problems Chris mentions can be overcome, but frankly, that is not up to me. This is a discussion, not a business plan! I note, Harry, that you continue to tell us that Netflix will be sporting commercials, despite direct denials by the company, and so your arguments on this subject, with respect, are not so robust either.

In relation to content, I think it is becoming obvious that in years to come, the streaming companies will be picking up exclusively the best programmes available from the US and elsewhere, leaving nothing but the scraps for the broadcast linear channels. So they will have to make or commission more programmes of their own. There are financial implications there that the broadcasters will have to assess very carefully.

Now some will say that Sky's new deal with Showtime proves the opposite, but of course it does not. We are not talking about the now, we are talking about the future. Ultimately, it is the companies with the global reach that will outbid the likes of Sky and our terrestrials. Sky's exclusive deal with Showtime may well prove to be one of its last.

I am afraid you will have to show me some evidence of how the internet/electricity issues and consistently high BB speeds fast enough for everyone in the country to receive the uninterrupted world of streaming services you envisage, will be overcome. Netflix and the others, must of already got their heads together and hired teams of people to be working on solving this very problem, other wise how else will they rule the televisual world in 10 years time?

Obviously I can not find any thing to back up my opinion with regards ads on Netflix, how ever, I dread to think how much Netflix will cost in 10 years time without them. Amazon have ad's on their main website, and also make more money from their main business model, so they could in theory, subsidise Amazon prime as ad free - if they choose to. Equally, I can not see them turning down ads to keep costs down. Also, you have seen me state Sky are showing ads on some of their OD portfolio and others have stated other broadcasters are showing adverts on their online offerings.

So I think its safe to say, Netflix et al, will eventually have to follow suit or risk losing out on extra money their direct rivals will be taking otherwise. How will they make up that lost money? By putting customer subscriptions up. Don't forget the more Netflix etc buy and/or the more their costs go up.

With regards streaming services, and your thoughts of Netflix etc picking up exclusive rights to the best programmes from the US and elsewhere. I assume you mean they will buy worldwide exclusive rights for their content? How much do you think that will cost without them, without taking vast amounts of ad money for global, un-skippable ads? Equally, would it then be finacially feasible for them to not be advertising to a global market, imagine the money they will turn down. These are serious issues that need to be addressed in your proposed world.

Even if what you envisage is true, considering most of the studios already own most of the production companies, and already make their own programmes, it is unlikely they will continue to give their best programmes away to the opposition.

If Netflix et al continue to grow into the monster you imagine they will become, what is to stop the content owners of the linear channels (who in your visions of the future world will be going out of business) from with holding any or all of their content from Netflix et al? Thus leaving Netflix et al, with only their minor amounts of exclusive content?

Incidently, how much do think Netflix alone will cost in 10 years and how much would you be willing to pay for a world of, say, 10 streaming services?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I am afraid you will have to show me some evidence of how the internet/electricity issues and consistently high BB speeds fast enough for everyone in the country to receive the uninterrupted world of streaming services you envisage, will be overcome. Netflix and the others, must of already got their heads together and hired teams of people to be working on solving this very problem, other wise how else will they rule the televisual world in 10 years time?

Obviously I can not find any thing to back up my opinion with regards ads on Netflix, how ever, I dread to think how much Netflix will cost in 10 years time without them. Amazon have ad's on their main website, and also make more money from their main business model, so they could in theory, subsidise Amazon prime as ad free - if they choose to. Equally, I can not see them turning down ads to keep costs down. Also, you have seen me state Sky are showing ads on some of their OD portfolio and others have stated other broadcasters are showing adverts on their online offerings.

So I think its safe to say, Netflix et al, will eventually have to follow suit or risk losing out on extra money their direct rivals will be taking otherwise. How will they make up that lost money? By putting customer subscriptions up. Don't forget the more Netflix etc buy and/or the more their costs go up.

With regards streaming services, and your thoughts of Netflix etc picking up exclusive rights to the best programmes from the US and elsewhere. I assume you mean they will buy worldwide exclusive rights for their content? How much do you think that will cost without them, without taking vast amounts of ad money for global, un-skippable ads? Equally, would it then be finacially feasible for them to not be advertising to a global market, imagine the money they will turn down. These are serious issues that need to be addressed in your proposed world.

Even if what you envisage is true, considering most of the studios already own most of the production companies, and already make their own programmes, it is unlikely they will continue to give their best programmes away to the opposition.

If Netflix et al continue to grow into the monster you imagine they will become, what is to stop the content owners of the linear channels (who in your visions of the future world will be going out of business) from with holding any or all of their content from Netflix et al? Thus leaving Netflix et al, with only their minor amounts of exclusive content?

Incidently, how much do think Netflix alone will cost in 10 years and how much would you be willing to pay for a world of, say, 10 streaming services?

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.

[Mad Max]

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.

Well said OB, excellent reply......

[harry_hitch]

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.

Well OB, you certainly expect others to serve up chapter and verse to counter your thoughts on the future. Fair(ish) comment regards the Netflix advertising, but you have conceded they may well have to introduce ad's to reduce costs, so not sure what else I need to post on the matter.

I don't believe I have ever asked you to make this a scientific discussion, I have just asked you to back up your statements. I have admitted I can't back up my Netflix ad claims, but you have not backed up your statements with any links.

There is no doubt companies are trying to solve the internet/elecrticity problem as it stands, but I am not aware of anyone trying to fix things so every person in the country to watch what they want, when they want it. Perhaps you would care to expand on this statement you psoted "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" and tell me which companies are racing to beat the problem and who is saying they are confident. That will back your argument up pretty well.

Before I go too much further, if linear channels do struggle for advertising in future, what is stop them put the prices up of their content and movies they are going to continue to sell to Netflix (as you suggest Netflix will still buy content), to counter the loss of potential lost ad revenue? Also, what would be the point of Universal (for example) launch a streaming service and still sell some of it's best content to Netflix? Surely that will make their streaming offering less valuable, whilst still making a competitors stronger? Even if Netflix and whoever, come to an agreement, what is to stop the linear based TV company only allowing Netflix 1 episode a week after the channel that owns it has shown it live on linear TV, as has happened with better call saul?

As to whats stopping people not migrating to streaming services, not a great deal at the moment. However, in 20 years time, it will be extremely expensive to what we pay now for the same content. Also, don't forget Now TV is a linear based streaming service, and that can not be used to help your case, because it is, linear TV, not an exclusively On Demand provider.

Now, pray tell, how many streaming services you foresee there being, and how much it will cost us. Please do answer, you have not done so on the few occasions I have asked.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Also, don't forget Now TV is a linear based streaming service, and that can not be used to help your case, because it is, linear TV, not an exclusively On Demand provider.

.

Now TV offers catch up for 28 days on current shows and box sets of previous shows with longer viewing windows.