Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch
Oh my word, OB, night working and wanting to spend time with the other half, don't help when wanting to reply to you. I apologise again for not replying, and I was clearly wrong about the government and subscriptions for BBC. As for not replying to the other posts, well, this one takes priority. Please don't try and wriggle out of it that easily. I challenged you ages ago about the fact linear tv being streamed over the Internet is, and would, still be linear based. This was one of the many arguments that you have disregarded in the past, and now you are trying to back track on this. I even asked you to clarify your comments about internet players a number of posts ago, and you did not. This won't wash with me, you have clearly realised your original premise of linear TV being dead in 10 years was wrong, you then changed that to 20 years (although you never change your mind). Now you are saying linear TV will survive via the Internet, even though you previously denied it would not - glad you still don't change your mind.
What a massive climb down OB, and what a shame you probably won't admit you have changed your mind.
That being said, you have stood up to intense criticism of your premise and have fought admirably against many arguments and detractors - even if you have had to change your views frequently. You fully deserve credit for your tenancity.
|
Hi, Harry, nice to hear from you.
I can assure you, I am not trying to 'wriggle out' of anything. I said a long time ago that sport could be streamed live over the Internet (a concept some found strange as they believed that only pre-recorded material could be viewed that way). What I meant, and I'm sorry if I did not make it sufficiently clear, was that scheduled live TV would not be available via the Internet once our conventional broadcast channels close down. However, I did make clear that programmes could be made available for streaming from a pre-announced time. Hence, you would not have to retain existing sports channels to show live TV.
I said in post #63 on this thread that there was unlikely to be an adequate broadband infrastructure accessible by the whole country for 10+ years, but my expectation on the survival of the broadcast linear channels is that they could survive 20.
However, Harry, I say again, this is a discussion and people are entitled to be persuaded by the arguments of other contributors.
I have not deliberately avoided any question that has been raised on here, although some posts are so long that it wouldn't be surprising! However, I would also say that I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how anyone could expect the commercial TV companies to continue to operate existing channels if they were no longer financially viable. You did say that they could rely on original programming and not allow re-broadcasting by other streaming services, but unfortunately, the financial case for this will not stack up. The broadcasters can't sell on their shows quick enough to make more money out of them (take the new series of Marcella starting on ITV next week - a deal for Netflix to show this series has already been done!).
Instead of criticising the fundamental idea that linear broadcast channels will never diminish and ultimately close, what is needed on here is a well thought through argument from my detractors as to how these channels can continue to operate with a diminishing audience (and therefore, diminishing income). It is not sufficient to say that Internet viewing will not continue to grow, largely at the expense of conventional TV viewing. Even the likes of Sky and ITV understand this impending threat. My question is what happens if it does?