[Kojak]

1 - Why is Sky more outdated than any other news channel? Plus, it has pretty much always been loss making - that's not why it has ever existed and, so long as other Sky operations can cross-subsidise it, I don't see why you'd abandon it - particularly not when it is at the height of its prestige and can now fairly legitimately claim to be the sole dedicated UK news channel. I could see them paring back elements or even a partial consolidation with NBC News, but ditching Sky News outright seems far fetched.

2 - What benefit is there to doing this? Do you envisage a parliament-first or a news-first channel? Is this in addition to the existing World-leaning channel or instead of it?

3 - I find it difficult to see a situation in which Sky News cannot survive but new independent rolling news channels can.

4 - Not impossible, but I don't really see any benefit to them doing this. Having an actual newsgathering operation in place to sustain an actual rolling news channel is quite expensive, even with the cheaper models. Given their existing financial situation, can't see what the investment possibly gets them - especially as it isn't really why people watch them.

5 - Again, not impossible, but other than perhaps an EPG placement for their livestream, I can't really see any developments into being a TV channel, nor any real reason for them to do so.

What I am particularly interested in are the current rumours that Comcast might buy out Warner Bros Discovery. It's very early days - if it happens at all - but if it does, it will ultimately bring CNN under the same umbrella as Sky and NBC. I could see some sort of consolidation between the three networks if this merger comes to pass - perhaps the 'NBC Sky World News' idea might be revived in some form?