Home News Forum Articles
  Welcome back Join CF
You are here You are here: Home | Forum | The future for linear TV channels

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.


Welcome to Cable Forum
Go Back   Cable Forum > Virgin Media Services > Virgin Media TV Service

The future for linear TV channels
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-02-2015, 11:59   #106
RichardCoulter
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,997
RichardCoulter has disabled reputation
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Some further reading material:

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201502103...#axzz3RL2USBZs
RichardCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Old 10-02-2015, 13:35   #107
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,569
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch View Post
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.
You may have read too much into my post. My reference to advertising budgets merely acknowledged that companies budgeted for advertising, and I wasn't suggesting that the money would come from anywhere other than the price of the product - I'm not quite sure how you read this into my comments.

Yes, I can manage my viewing schedule; in fact, this is what I do now. But this isn't about me, I am looking to the future and what may be decided by those who control these things.

I envisage that BBC and ITV will be funded in future with more limited advertising and more by subscriptions and programme rights. ITV is already reducing its reliance on advertising for its very survival and has been incredibly successful in developing its income streams by way of new studio productions and sales, for example.

In the future I can see BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (not sure about 5!) having their own streaming sites, although they could get together to share the cost of setting them up and running them. We already have the On Demand players, of course, but they may no longer be free services and may contain much more content.

The BBC will certainly not be able to trouser so much money as they do now, but they will still have a decent budget with limited advertising and the sale of programmes abroad and to other UK sites who want to have their offerings available on their sites as well.

Original programmes would not disappear - Netflix is showing the way to developing their own material as well as making a decent profit into the bargain.

Regarding affordability, I would imagine that most people with limited resources would be signing up to Netflix and the on demand (or successor) services for their existing terrestrial feast. I can't see them also getting Amazon, although they may choose to do that rather than Netflix, or some other combination. Those of us with money would probably subscribe to all the sites that can offer us the variety we want. Some of these would be subscription, some pay per view.

Incidentally, I do envisage a much better choice of streaming service providers in the future. It would be wrong to look at things as they stand now and believe that it will still look the same in ten years' time. If the choice is there, and it's free of constant advert interruptions and its viewable when you want to view it, what is there not to like?
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 17:44   #108
Chris
Trollsplatter
Cable Forum Team
 
Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North of Watford
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,871
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
If the choice is there, and it's free of constant advert interruptions and its viewable when you want to view it, what is there not to like?
1. Too much choice is the enemy. Hence why the top 5 EPG slots are reserved by law, rather than sold to the highest bidder, which would always be Sky, because;
2. Sky has understood from the outset that as you can't get audiences of more than about 2 million for anything other than live football, and therefore has to charge a subscription *and* run 15 minutes of adverts per hour in order to cover the cost of its premier US imports and still turn a profit.

Oh, and

3. It is unlikely that the UK's broadband infrastructure will have sufficient bandwidth, and reach, to replace broadcast as the official public service delivery platform, any time in the next 15 years. So no, for a great many people, it wouldn't even be viewabke when you want it.
Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2015, 02:56   #109
harry_hitch
Heavens to Betsy, Bertie!
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cambs
Services: TIVO, M TV, L BB, M Phone
Posts: 1,094
harry_hitch has reached the bronze age
harry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze age
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
You may have read too much into my post. My reference to advertising budgets merely acknowledged that companies budgeted for advertising, and I wasn't suggesting that the money would come from anywhere other than the price of the product - I'm not quite sure how you read this into my comments.

Yes, I can manage my viewing schedule; in fact, this is what I do now. But this isn't about me, I am looking to the future and what may be decided by those who control these things.

I envisage that BBC and ITV will be funded in future with more limited advertising and more by subscriptions and programme rights. ITV is already reducing its reliance on advertising for its very survival and has been incredibly successful in developing its income streams by way of new studio productions and sales, for example.

In the future I can see BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (not sure about 5!) having their own streaming sites, although they could get together to share the cost of setting them up and running them. We already have the On Demand players, of course, but they may no longer be free services and may contain much more content.

The BBC will certainly not be able to trouser so much money as they do now, but they will still have a decent budget with limited advertising and the sale of programmes abroad and to other UK sites who want to have their offerings available on their sites as well.

Original programmes would not disappear - Netflix is showing the way to developing their own material as well as making a decent profit into the bargain.

Regarding affordability, I would imagine that most people with limited resources would be signing up to Netflix and the on demand (or successor) services for their existing terrestrial feast. I can't see them also getting Amazon, although they may choose to do that rather than Netflix, or some other combination. Those of us with money would probably subscribe to all the sites that can offer us the variety we want. Some of these would be subscription, some pay per view.

Incidentally, I do envisage a much better choice of streaming service providers in the future. It would be wrong to look at things as they stand now and believe that it will still look the same in ten years' time. If the choice is there, and it's free of constant advert interruptions and its viewable when you want to view it, what is there not to like?
Will reply properly when I am sober!! However, if you hate adverts so much, how can you advocate the use of adverts on BBC? Also why would commercially fundeed channels want to help fund the BBC to launch a streaming channel.

You are contradictiong yourself regarding Netflix and Amazon now too,

Far too many faults in your recent argument....in fact I may even ignore your latest comments tomorrow. We will see in the the morning though.
harry_hitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2015, 13:32   #110
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,569
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
1. Too much choice is the enemy. Hence why the top 5 EPG slots are reserved by law, rather than sold to the highest bidder, which would always be Sky, because;
2. Sky has understood from the outset that as you can't get audiences of more than about 2 million for anything other than live football, and therefore has to charge a subscription *and* run 15 minutes of adverts per hour in order to cover the cost of its premier US imports and still turn a profit.

Oh, and

3. It is unlikely that the UK's broadband infrastructure will have sufficient bandwidth, and reach, to replace broadcast as the official public service delivery platform, any time in the next 15 years. So no, for a great many people, it wouldn't even be viewabke when you want it.
BT are already rolling out superfast broadband across the country on behalf of the Government. Do you really think that will take 15 years? Take a decade off that and you'll be closer to the mark.

---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch View Post
Will reply properly when I am sober!! However, if you hate adverts so much, how can you advocate the use of adverts on BBC? Also why would commercially fundeed channels want to help fund the BBC to launch a streaming channel.

You are contradictiong yourself regarding Netflix and Amazon now too,

Far too many faults in your recent argument....in fact I may even ignore your latest comments tomorrow. We will see in the the morning though.
I think you may be misinterpreting my meanings!

On adverts, I am really annoyed at the constant interruptions to programmes. On Sky, an hour long programme can be reduced to 45 minutes easily if you fast forward through them. Up to 3 ads just before your selection I can tolerate, but I would fast forward through them as well if the facility was there!

I have not contradicted myself on Amazon and Netflix. I think XL type subscribers would probably tend to get both, but poorer subscribers would choose between them, or just go for what is currently the terrestrial choice. Incidentally, I think there will be a bigger choice of video streaming providers in the future.

Why do you think that the commercial TV companies would not collaborate with the BBC on an agreed platform to reduce costs? That principle has already been established.
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2015, 14:39   #111
passingbat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Services: Virgin 100 meg BB, Talk More Anytime Phone, Mix TV, V6.
Posts: 4,729
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
!

On Sky, an hour long programme can be reduced to 45 minutes easily if you fast forward through them. .
That's probably because all US Network shows (ABC, Fox etc.) are timed to run for a total of about 43 minutes.

US Cable shows (HBO, Showtime etc.) can run almost up to the full hour.

Given that UK TV starts all 'hour long' shows on the top of the hour, what choice do Sky or any other UK broadcaster have? And it's the add revenue that funds the show's purchase!
passingbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2015, 13:08   #112
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,569
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat View Post
That's probably because all US Network shows (ABC, Fox etc.) are timed to run for a total of about 43 minutes.

US Cable shows (HBO, Showtime etc.) can run almost up to the full hour.

Given that UK TV starts all 'hour long' shows on the top of the hour, what choice do Sky or any other UK broadcaster have? And it's the add revenue that funds the show's purchase!
I'm not blaming Sky for that. My point is simply that streaming avoids this incredible waste of time.

I understand completely the issue about funding through advertisements. However, ITV are already having to reduce their reliance on ads and develop alternative revenue streams (eg through increased production sales, product placement, etc).
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2015, 13:49   #113
passingbat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Services: Virgin 100 meg BB, Talk More Anytime Phone, Mix TV, V6.
Posts: 4,729
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
ITV are already having to reduce their reliance on ads and develop alternative revenue streams (eg through increased production sales, product placement, etc).
But they are still going to need advertising.

You either have Add funded, or Subscription funded. To think you can have a subscription free service without adverting is delusional IMHO.

Some US services, such as Hulu Plus and CBS All Access are subscription and also have adds.
passingbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2015, 13:59   #114
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,569
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat View Post
But they are still going to need advertising.

You either have Add funded, or Subscription funded. To think you can have a subscription free service without adverting is delusional IMHO.

Some US services, such as Hulu Plus and CBS All Access are subscription and also have adds.
There will be less reliance on advertising (unless they find other methods of bombarding us).

They will all have to be ad funded, subscription funded or pay per view, or a combination of these. But in the scenario I've painted, we won't have the BBC licence fee. I know that many will gasp at the prospect of the TV licence days going, but the Government is already looking at this.

The money saved can be put towards the new services.
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2015, 14:12   #115
passingbat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Services: Virgin 100 meg BB, Talk More Anytime Phone, Mix TV, V6.
Posts: 4,729
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
but the Government is already looking at this.

.
Of course they are; their heart lies with Rupert. They represent the people for whom Pay TV is an insignificant cost.
passingbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2015, 23:50   #116
harry_hitch
Heavens to Betsy, Bertie!
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cambs
Services: TIVO, M TV, L BB, M Phone
Posts: 1,094
harry_hitch has reached the bronze age
harry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze ageharry_hitch has reached the bronze age
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Lets say we drop to 3 ads per show. Would you agree that becomes 3 companies who are able to advertise per show? I would hope you do, it seems very logical to me.

What do you think will be the outcome if this ever happened? Big companies will spend massive amounts of money to get the rights to show the ads ahead of the most popular shows on TV - Eastenders, Corrie, GBBO, X factor, Broadchurch etc. With these shows now on-demand, there will be no limit to how many shows they can put their ads on, because we will only watch one show at a time. Please don't tell we will start regulating who can advertise and on what shows, that will never work.

Ironically, I reckon companies will spend much more money on adverts because they will still want to advertise on the best shows. Imagine how much money Tesco or Asda will need to spend to get their "we are cheaper than Tesco/Asda" adverts out. It will be an all out bidding war between huge companies with massive pockets for the top shows, and the cost will then filter down to the cost of the products.

Whilst we are on the topic of adverts, what happens to the current sponsors of the shows now? Do they still get to sponsor the show? If they do, does their mini sponsor ad count as one of the three ads you think will be acceptable, if so, we now only have two other spaces for companies per show, and I refer you back to my point about bidding wars for the limited advertising space. If it does not count as one of the three, are there now 4 ads per show and is that acceptable?

Lets also say you right and the BBC loses the license fee too and millions of families can still only afford a limited budget the same as the old license fee.

Lets say an average family watches Pointless (or any other daily weekday show) and it becomes pay per view and I have to watch adverts before it starts. Firstly, I am already hacked off cos I have to watch adverts. Secondly, how much does one episode cost? 99p? Lets say it is shown 22 times a month (30 days minus 8 days for the weekends.) that will cost a hard up family £21.78 - just for one show. Even if it only costs 49p, it is still £10.78. That is almost the cost of the monthly licence now, and they still can't afford Netflix either. Do you really think the tv companies will want to limit the amount of shows people can watch to one show per day? Surely that will not help them sell advertising space on the lesser watched shows.
harry_hitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2015, 13:22   #117
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,569
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch View Post
Lets say we drop to 3 ads per show. Would you agree that becomes 3 companies who are able to advertise per show? I would hope you do, it seems very logical to me.

What do you think will be the outcome if this ever happened? Big companies will spend massive amounts of money to get the rights to show the ads ahead of the most popular shows on TV - Eastenders, Corrie, GBBO, X factor, Broadchurch etc. With these shows now on-demand, there will be no limit to how many shows they can put their ads on, because we will only watch one show at a time. Please don't tell we will start regulating who can advertise and on what shows, that will never work.

Ironically, I reckon companies will spend much more money on adverts because they will still want to advertise on the best shows. Imagine how much money Tesco or Asda will need to spend to get their "we are cheaper than Tesco/Asda" adverts out. It will be an all out bidding war between huge companies with massive pockets for the top shows, and the cost will then filter down to the cost of the products.

Whilst we are on the topic of adverts, what happens to the current sponsors of the shows now? Do they still get to sponsor the show? If they do, does their mini sponsor ad count as one of the three ads you think will be acceptable, if so, we now only have two other spaces for companies per show, and I refer you back to my point about bidding wars for the limited advertising space. If it does not count as one of the three, are there now 4 ads per show and is that acceptable?

Lets also say you right and the BBC loses the license fee too and millions of families can still only afford a limited budget the same as the old license fee.

Lets say an average family watches Pointless (or any other daily weekday show) and it becomes pay per view and I have to watch adverts before it starts. Firstly, I am already hacked off cos I have to watch adverts. Secondly, how much does one episode cost? 99p? Lets say it is shown 22 times a month (30 days minus 8 days for the weekends.) that will cost a hard up family £21.78 - just for one show. Even if it only costs 49p, it is still £10.78. That is almost the cost of the monthly licence now, and they still can't afford Netflix either. Do you really think the tv companies will want to limit the amount of shows people can watch to one show per day? Surely that will not help them sell advertising space on the lesser watched shows.
Regarding the advertisements, who knows how this will pan out in the future. There is a similar argument you can apply to newspapers, and everyone must realise by now that the printed version of newspapers now has a limited time span and that online news is where we are all going. So where do the newspapers get their income from if no-one is paying and printed ads no longer appear? Solutions are already forthcoming - some papers like The Times charge for their content. Others are supported by on line advertising.

The TV industry has some big changes to think about and I believe their income in future is likely to come from advertising on their web sites, a small number of ads prior to programmes, placement advertising, targeted advertising, sponsorship of programmes, sales of content and so on.

I agree with you that lower income households will not be in a position to spend money on pay per view programmes - this is not the cheapest way of accessing content! However a Netflix subscription of £6.99 per month and a further outlay for the on demand websites operated by BBC, Channel 4 and 5 is not going to be any more than the existing TV licence, which is extortionate and resented by many.

once again, although I am wedded to the idea of video streaming as my preferred way of watching TV, I have no problem with the linear channels continuing as now. I just can't see that it will continue like this for much longer as people work out for themselves that there is a better way and technology continues to improve.

By the way, as far as broadband coverage is concerned, I heard on the radio today that Virgin Media have announced a major expansion covering three quarters of the country. This, together with the BT contract for extending super fast broadband across the country within five years, will overcome some of the issues preventing the withdrawal of linear channels by the next decade.
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2015, 13:52   #118
passingbat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Services: Virgin 100 meg BB, Talk More Anytime Phone, Mix TV, V6.
Posts: 4,729
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
the existing TV licence, which is extortionate and resented by many.

.
How do you make a fee of around £12 a month extortionate considering the vast amount of content you get for that amount; TV, Radio and your favourite content delivery method; On Line.

Quote:
and resented by many.
Do you have the statistics to support this?
passingbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2015, 14:35   #119
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,569
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat View Post
How do you make a fee of around £12 a month extortionate considering the vast amount of content you get for that amount; TV, Radio and your favourite content delivery method; On Line.

Do you have the statistics to support this?
Looking at the tremendous waste that goes on at the BBC, of course it is extortionate.

I have not seen any surveys done on what people think of the TV licence, but quite a lot of correspondence on these forums and elsewhere testifies to the fact that a lot of people resent paying for it. I can understand why, particularly if you don't actually watch the BBC channels or listen to BBC radio.

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:17 ----------

Moving forward....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...V-service.html

Freeview is to undergo its biggest overhaul in a decade by launching a new service called Freeview Play, which will provide access to catch-up content from BBC iPlayer, ITV Player and 4OD.

The free service will allow thousands of British households to access on-demand services in their living rooms for the first time.

Freeview Play will be available on a range of new TVs and set-top boxes, and enabled with any existing broadband service. Viewers will be able to search for catch-up content by scrolling back in the TV guide or through apps.

The service will go head-to-head with YouView – the connected TV service launched in 2012 by the main TV broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5), together with BT, TalkTalk and Arqiva – which recently signed a deal to integrate with Sony TVs.

Freeview was launched in 2002 as a joint venture between the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, BSkyB and Arqiva, the telecoms group. It provides over 60 TV channels, up to 12 HD channels and over 25 radio stations and is subscription-free.

Freeview wants its new connected TV service to become the “new normal” way to watch TV.

Guy North, managing director of Freeview, said: “Freeview has been built on a vision to make television available to all free from subscription. In the same way that we took the UK from analogue to digital, Freeview Play is the next step in that vision and will put the viewer in control.

“We want to keep television fair and open for everyone. That means giving consumers the freedom to choose the TV they want, the way they want it.”

Last year, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 withdrew most of their financial support for YouView and agreed to spend more than £100m developing a new internet-connected version of Freeview, after it emerged that virtually all YouView households were pay-TV customers of BT or TalkTalk.

This was due in part to the £300 retail price of a YouView set-top, which meant that the service only became popular when the cost was subsidised by BT or TalkTalk and spread across the duration of a broadband contract.

The main goal of Freeview Play is to ensure that catch-up services such as the BBC iPlayer, ITV Player and 4OD are available in the living room to households that cannot afford or do not want a pay-TV package.

“The UK has a very proud heritage of making sure people have access to free television,” said Mr North. “We are aiming to do with Freeview Play what Freeview has always done, which is making technology available and affordable for a mass market.”

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

...And here is the Virgin Media story about extending their service beyond their existing boundaries by 2020.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...K-economy.html

Virgin Media has announced what it calls the largest investment into Britain's broadband infrastructure for more than a decade, creating 6,000 new jobs in an £8bn boost to the UK economy.

The internet provider will extend its network to approximately 4m additional homes and offices over the next five years as part of what it has called "Project Lightning," taking its coverage to nearly 17m premises by 2020.

Analysis undertaken by leading economic consultancy Oxera has found that this investment can be expected to spark £8bn of economic activity.

"I welcome this substantial investment from Virgin Media which is a vote of confidence in our long-term economic plan to support business and create jobs by building a superfast nation backed by world-class infrastructure," said the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

"These 6,000 new jobs and [1,000] apprenticeships will mean financial security and economic peace of mind for thousands more hardworking families across the country."

The media company has claimed that householders will benefit from broadband speeds of 152Mb, at least twice as fast as the fastest speeds available from rival media companies BT, TalkTalk and Sky.

The rollout is also expected to provide small businesses and people working from home with faster broadband.

“Millions of homes and businesses will soon be able to benefit for the first time from broadband speeds at least twice as fast as those available from the other major providers," said Tom Mockridge, chief executive, who joined Virgin Media last July from News International.


The race to sign up pay-TV and broadband customers intensified last year with the launch of BT's sports channels, which are free with the company's internet service, as well as the roll-out of fibre-optic cables, which offer much faster broadband speeds.
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2015, 15:28   #120
passingbat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Services: Virgin 100 meg BB, Talk More Anytime Phone, Mix TV, V6.
Posts: 4,729
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
passingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronzepassingbat is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
Looking at the tremendous waste that goes on at the BBC, of course it is extortionate.
.

Waste is wrong. So you fix it. You don't, "Throw the baby out with the bath water"!

I believe the BBC is under such scrutiny these days that it is being addressed going forward.



Quote:
I have not seen any surveys done on what people think of the TV licence, but quite a lot of correspondence on these forums and elsewhere testifies to the fact that a lot of people resent paying for it. I can understand why, particularly if you don't actually watch the BBC channels or listen to BBC radio.
Do you realise that a proportionately minuscule number of people read forums such as this and other online discussion outlets?

And generally only the people who are disgruntled with an established entity tend to post. The vast majority who are happy with the way things are, have no reason to go seeking online discussions. Therefore, forum opinion is weighted and of no use for determining the true national feeling on the BBC.
passingbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:10.


Server: osmium.zmnt.uk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.