Permissions on Channels and nesting Channels

Permissions on Channels and nesting Channels



 Jul 04 2017
78 Comments (78 New)
Not at this time

* Please can we have permission in Stream like there are in Microsoft Video. As a school we would like to have the ability to allow class by class access to channels (Not Video by Video?!?!) This is vital as some content is not applicable to various levels of students.

* We have all our classes in Active Directory from our SMS so why cant we use those instead of Groups? 

* Please can you give Admin (at least) The ability to nest channels with in Channels so that accessing content is easier instead of over 100 channels to surf through. We could then organise channels into Primary, Junior Secondary and Secondary as the top teir and build the channels in these three categories.


(You have done well with Microsoft Videos just getting it to a useable place and now you are going to force us to use Stream? ) 



Ability to set permissions on channels for who has permissions to see the channel

Regular Contributor
Status changed to: Investigating
Occasional Visitor

ADFS, please.

Regular Contributor

This is essential for large organizations to control contents. It will drastically reduce the effort of managing permissions and reduces the number of mistakes, compared with setting permissions per video.

Regular Contributor

What is more interesting to you all, permissions on a single Channel (essentially a private Channel with custom permission settings) - or Group/team based pages where you can collaborate on multiple Group channels and videos? 

Or, would you want to leverage the capabilites of modern groups across other products, like Outlook, Planner, Yammer, Skype, etc. and be able to set up a single group that works across those products?


Regular Contributor

@johndeu wrote:

What is more interesting to you all, permissions on a single Channel (essentially a private Channel with custom permission settings) - or Group/team based pages where you can collaborate on multiple Group channels and videos? 

Or, would you want to leverage the capabilites of modern groups across other products, like Outlook, Planner, Yammer, Skype, etc. and be able to set up a single group that works across those products?


Custom permissions on a single Channel would be sufficient to start with.
Creating group based pages would be a great addition to create a well managed structure when increasing the use of Stream.

Regular Contributor

Yes, this would be great. I would particularly like to idea of being able to make a PUBLIC channel which you can then drop videos into which could be the "OnDemand" face of our organisation for an external audience.


Not dissimilar to having your organisations on YouTube Channel.




Regular Contributor

Also need some way to manage "Owner" permissions to be more than a single user.  Right now only the author or a global administrator can edit/delete a video.  Some assests are organizational and need to be managed after an employee leaves.


Ability to set permissions on channels for who has permissions to see the channel

And....who can upload to that channel !

Regular Contributor

How can we give staff acces to download videos that other people have uploaded? We'd like to have a temp upload all of our company videos to Stream and then have designers be able to download videos.

Valued Contributor

Similar to O365 Video Channels, Companywide Channels should have the same settings:

  • Owners - can edit sharing
  • Contributors - can add and remove videos
  • Viewers - can only view videos


As an internal corporate tool, there has to be some level of control, and letting anyone contribute to Companywide channels is a big mistake in many cases.  


Using Groups to do this is one way, but it has farther reaching implications to other O365 Services.  Companywide channels should be used for strictly delivering videos, and not additional services (like Planner for example).  Adding controls like Owner/Contributor/Viewer would help alleviate a lot of pain points and criticisms.  You could even make Contributor be "everyone" by default, and give admins the ability to change it later.

The channel management in Office 365 Video was perfect for IT Dpt. It was very simple to control who have access to what. With Stream, even the performance and appearance are far more superiors than O365 Video, the choices and possibilities from Admin perspective are really poor at this stage. Typically, users won't be able to set the correct access rights by themselves resulting in a mess were team-confidential videos are shared with the entire company. Please introduce a clearer user access management in Stream. 


With 0365 you are easily able to change an owner of a channel. With Stream you don't appear to be able to change owbnership. In our business we normally set content up for people so if this is requested we become the owner and the actually owner cant see the channels without "following them" - not ideal Also what if someone leaves? The content is a department one for example what happens when the person leaves? Ideally you need to be able to add more then one and or change ownership for Channels.

New Contributor

You can add other people or groups to the "Shared with..." section of the permissions pannel.  Then just check the "Owner" box next to them.  They now have the same access rights as the original owner.

I'll check that out thanks for letting me know.
When you go to Edit the channel I dont se any share with options? I Just see edit title and description or image. Where do you locate share under channel settings sorry?
Senior Member

We use this security feature in O365 Video and won't be able to enable Stream corporate-wide until it can be enabled on Strean Channels as well.  For a big company, it is essential.



Occasional Visitor

As a teacher, O365 video still has better features than stream because of the ability to assign permissions to a channel. This way we can dedicate specific channels to staff, year levels etc. At present, Stream requires me to grant permissions to each video I add which is unacceptable. 


If only there was an ability to sort videos better in O365 Video, we would stick with that. Using groups is not efficient in an educational context as the management is ongoing and constantly needs changing. Using the AD-security groups is much easier. Please ensure that Stream can have permissions assigned based on securiy groups so that we can easily restrict access.


I tried creating a staff channel, uploading a video and changing the permissions to staff only, but then found the video is not located in the channel. It only appears if you make the Channel company wide. Unfortunately, this means all the students will be able to view it.

Status changed to: Completed

Stream has the concept of groups, which is a set of people who have permissions on a concept.  Stream also has channels, which are a way to organize your content within those groups. This should satisfy the idea request, please feel free to include another idea if you wish to see additional features.

Senior Member

I agree wholeheartedly with this idea!

We use O365 extensively in an educational setting with multiple schools within the same tenant. We are building student Portals using modern SharePoint sites and would like to embed a number of school-wide video channels in  these sites.. We cannot use O365 groups for these because some of our schools have 1,500 students (the group limit is 1,000) and company-wide distribution means that content cannot be limited to a single school. Managing the potential safeguarding issues that this could present is stopping us from using what could be a fantastic resource.


Brent's point about the proliferation of products that come with O365 Group creation is also valid - we don't want the admin overhead of finding ways to all hide the additional mail-enabled security groups, calendars, SharePoint sites, planners etc. that would appear alongside every video channel either.


I am not averse to using O365 Groups (and Teams) but just want to create them for a specific purpose


Senior Member

Groups are great if you need one or two but what if you need 2,000. We don't have the resources to set that up. Like previous posts we need permission control without modern groups. Video channel permissions work well plan in education. This new stream offering is complex and confusing.

Senior Member

Another education user checking in, and Groups permissions are too complicated and do not meet our needs.


We need a way to create a channel that everyone in the district has permission to see, but only a few users have permission to edit. (Our users need to be able to do this for the school morning shows, as an example.) If we make a public group, then anyone can simply join the group and mess up the channels that schools have created. If we make a private group, no one can see the group channels.


As there are no specific channel permissions, I would hardly say that this is completed.


@Edward Heeren -  For this use case you mentioned "We need a way to create a channel that everyone in the district has permission to see, but only a few users have permission to edit." 


You mentioned that a Public group wouldn't work because anyone can join the group and mess up the channels.

We do have a special Stream setting that determines if members can contribute or if they are viewers only. I'm wondering if that setting is enough to cover your use case or not?


This is what I was thinking...

You make a public group.

In Stream you set the setting "Allow members to contribute" to "off".

You make anyone who needs to upload to the group an owner of the group.

Yes other people can join the group because it's public, but only the owners of the group can upload / create and edit channels in the group.

Senior Member

Creating a Public Channel in our institution will allow over 60,000 students comment and upload who knows what to the modern group.  Sorry.. bad idea.  In addition it doesn't stop anyone from adding the videos to every single Channel they feel like, making Channels pointless as you have no control over them.  For an educational environment the existing 365 video permissions and channels just made sense.  I'm really struggling to work out what the purpose was of these new controls.


Given the constraints on the existing Stream design and features I'd have to suggest we need it modified in the following way.


1. Admin Creates Group

2. Assign Owners - Users that can upload and edit videos (People/Groups)

3. Assign Viewers - People that can view videos in the group (People/Groups)... and I mean videos, not the rest of the Groups features like, files or calendar.



1. Admin Creates Channel

2. Assigns Owners - Users that can add videos to the Channel (People/Groups)


This allows us to do two things:

1. Create video channels where Staff and Students can see the content where they have specified access through the group permissions.

2. Ensure that channel content is consistent


Thanks. MM




@Mark Menadue - Thanks for the feedback and thoughts. So my solution above about a Public group in Stream where only owners can contribute in Stream falls apart in so much as anyone can upload/use the other parts of the O365 modern group (SharePoint, Outlook, Planner, etc)


I was following up on this feature request because we are evaluating 2 things - Stream using O365 Groups only and "Companywide channels". We are thinking about how to handle both of those in response to the feedback you and others have given in these areas. O365 Groups is the primary permission infrastructure that most O365 services are being built on and we need to participate in that, but we are also trying to balance that out with the fact that some customers aren't ready for Modern Groups yet and modern groups are just a flat list of individual owners or members. (You can't nest an AD Security group in a modern group and there isn't a viewer role).

Senior Member

@Marc Mroz - We can't move to O365 modern groups for a number of reasons, it's not that we don't want to.


1. We don't want to give student groups the features of a modern group

2. There is no way to synchronise an AD security group with AAD connect to a modern group nor is there a dynamic O365 group

3. Nesting as you already commented


Looking forward to your solution.

Senior Member

@Marc Mroz Thanks for that feedback. It's how we are having users use Stream for the moment, however for the aforementioned reasons all of the other features of modern groups cause issues when we have students joining a public group. 


I second the concerns and solutions @Mark Menadue posed.

One of our customers is having a similar problem. They have more than 1000 users that need to view videos in a channel, but not have the permissions to delete or add new videos.

A simple escenario is a Channel for training managed for HR department for all company employees. How can we do that now in Stream without give edit permissions to all employees?

Senior Member

@Marc Mroz any update to these raised issues?

New Contributor


Today , we can't apply to a Channel a level the permissions to a "Security Group" , only an "Office Group".
so, very unfortunately, it blocks actually the use of this service