Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

anybody who has a decent supplier will have support available, usually on the likes of telegram etc for obvious privacy reasons. Mine reports very frequently on any issues that are being experienced and is very proactive.

I see a lot of references of "free" when discussing IPTV. It's not free, consumers pay for a sub. Sure, pretty much anything on IPTV can be found for free somewhere by searching dodgy sites, etc. But most (vast majority of) consumers of pirate IPTV do actually pay. What this proves, is that consumers don't just want "free", they want something that's easily accessible and reasonably priced. Just like Spotify killed p2p music piracy, because it makes music accessible and affordable and proves that consumers are willing to pay for the service, the only way that the TV/movie broadcasters and streaming services are really going to kill pirate IPTV is by giving consumers an easily accessible service that is reasonably priced. Yes that will require a complete restructuring of their business models, but either they move with the times or die, just like Xtravision.

Your question in no way invalidates any of my points. If the media producers and broadcasters want the revenue instead of the pirates getting the revenue, then they need to give the consumers what they want. It's called market demand, and the execs in the producers and broadcasters should have a solid understanding of market demand from when they did their MBAs. If they choose to ignore that basic concept of running a business, that's on them.

You could have said the same with music producers and labels at the time of napster/limewire/kazaa/etc. Yet, Spotify made it work. For TV and film media, it will take a fundamental shift in the business model of the producers and broadcasters, but as I said before they either adapt or die.

If they die, then based on the fact there is a market demand then a new disruptor will take their place. Sure, it will look different to the current landscape, however, I'm willing to bet that new landscape defined by the disruptor will be better for the consumer.

Will there be knock on effects? Sure, Sky might not be able to pay the exorbitant fees for EPL rights, as an example. Clubs might have to pay the players a bit less. But from a consumer perspective, that's fine. I don't think there's many lads who are struggling to pay bills and put good food on the table for their family really want to donate a portion of their wages to a footballer getting paid £300k per week anyway.

At the end of the day, the current situation with dodgy boxes is a reflection of the market right now, and no matter how hard the broadcasters try to fight to retain the current market landscape, they will fail. Adapt or die.

A core part of business leadership is to study the past successes and failures of others. Spotify is a great example of success, compared to Xtravision. I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned frequently in the context of this discussion.

Exactly. If the pirates had to produce some content it would be as cheap.

I just píssed myself, thanks. 😂

Too many rights holders making too much money. The current highly fragmented situation suits them. If you want to see a microcosm of it, look at the way that channels are grouped for various tiers in Pay TV. As stand-alone channels, many of them would not be commercially viable. As part of a package or tier, their chances are better. The main targets seem to be the movies, series and sports. The rights for all of those are licecned on a regional or market basis. Even Netflix and other streaming services have to deal with this issue.

Possible