Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179495)

Starmer isn't going to switch off the telly when millions of homes rely upon it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179504)

He might not have a choice.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179488)

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/military-u...ies-in-europe/

[EXTRACT]

UK broadcasters are pushing toward a mid-2035 terrestrial TV switch-off in favour of a streaming-only future. They’ve shown little or no interest in maintaining terrestrial TV in any form beyond this date, citing costs. However, over on the continent, broadcasters are looking at 5G Broadcast as a way of migrating to streaming while maintaining much of the current terrestrial transmitter network to deliver that service. In the long term, 5G Broadcast would use the 470-608 MHz band, if the 608+ MHz band (n71) was re-farmed for mobile use.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36179695)

It’s a shame because Apple TV is producing some of the best material available in streaming TV. Foundation, Slow Horses and Ted Lasso are all absolutely superb (and they’re by no means the only ones). However Apple are relatively late to the game, don’t have a brand associated with TV production and are, as most of us have been pointing out for years, operating in an extremely crowded, fragmented market.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36179705)

Is Apple+ one of the cheaper overall ?
It has a 7 day free trial, and no adverts, and looking on the site, its £8.99 a month.
You get 3 months free with any new apple device, and you can share your subscription with up to 5 other family members.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179784)

:rofl: the Commonwealth Games.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179802)

I'm going to call it now - linear television will survive longer than the Commonwealth Games.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179882)

How do you define ‘linear television’, jfman? :naughty::rofl:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179882)

How do you define ‘linear television’, jfman? :naughty::rofl:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36141945)

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1197

My definition of a linear channel has always been clear.

A sequence of continuous programming where everyone watching that channel (or stream) is watching the exact same thing at the same time according to what the broadcaster sends out. It’s completely agnostic to the method of delivery.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179883)

Everyone knows I know what it is except you, OB.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36179894)

Tv is nice I know, but it's mostly repeats or crap, streamed or otherwise.
Don't you think we all ought to worry more about the future of the NHS? :confused:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36179906)

Since when has Linear TV "often" been described as 'live TV' ?

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36179919)

The front of a STB doesn't verify the definition of a broadcast linear TV.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36179906)

Since when has Linear TV "often" been described as 'live TV' ?

Live TV is broadcasting an event as it happens, which is a small fraction of Linear TV.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36179924)

Actually, I asked how long has it has "often" been described as Live TV.

I asked around my family (and friends) and everyone defined Live TV as what you would expect, broadcast of an event as its happening, for example, a Football Match.

They consider the rest to be "Terrestrial TV" or "Streaming (TV)".
Granted, no one (I know) calls it Linear TV, but that wasnt the point, the point is they have never called it "Live TV".

Before streaming was a thing, it was just TV, and Live TV.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36179924)

Granted, no one (I know) calls it Linear TV, but that wasnt the point, the point is they have never called it "Live TV".

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179940)

Then, if IPTV becomes the means of broadcasting TV, there is the question of (a) whether audiences will choose ‘on demand’ over the listed channels

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179940)

We spend far too much time agonising over what a ‘linear channel’ is. We all know it is scheduled TV, which includes live streams, but over time the media has used the phrase very loosely to mean our conventional TV channels as shown on our EPGs.

Given the title of this thread, we need to be less picky about these terms and the pedantic detail as demonstrated in so many posts and actually debate how we see TV changing over the years.

Much now depends on the government’s attitude to switching off the transmitter signals in favour of IPTV, which they may have trouble resisting, given the international pressure to make more bandwidth available for 5G, the cost to broadcasters in paying out for conventional broadcasting over the transmitters when a cheaper alternative is available, etc.

Then, if IPTV becomes the means of broadcasting TV, there is the question of (a) whether audiences will choose ‘on demand’ over the listed channels and (b) whether the broadcasters themselves actually want to spend more than they need to so that people are given that option.

We will see, but I think I know where this will end.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36179945)

I do, often. If someone reports a fault when playing back a recording, or while watching On Demand, I'll ask them "Does it also do it on live TV?". I can't think of a clearer way that would be generally understood.


They won't. Most people don't know or care how their television is delivered as long as it works when they switch it on.

Stream, and the FAST channels, are IPTV already. It doesn't make people think "ooh, I must watch on demand".

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179955)

There’s nothing pedantic about trying to avoid you conflating two separate things - linear television which (although the vast majority of it is consumed over terrestrial, satellite or cable) isn’t technology dependant and the end of terrestrial, satellite and DVB-C cable broadcasts in favour of IP based solutions (which can be both linear or on demand).

You could actually end the conversation right now by clarifying.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179964)

No, you are missing the point. On IPTV you will have the choice in front of you. Scheduled TV or on demand. It’s which the majority of people choose that will be the deciding factor.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179968)

Yet another opportunity passed up to clarify which of the two you mean, or both?

Do you not think it’d be of benefit to have it there in black and white once and for all? Hugh could helpfully link to it in future every time I (or anyone else) gets confused. As he did with my clear definition of what I understand linear television to be.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179968)

These are exactly the same choices presented to every Sky Q or TiVo/V6 user at present. Yet the evidence would suggest often they head straight to live tv to see what is on now.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180019)

I don’t think your question has anything to do with what I have written in my posts. How is it relevant? You are just making waves. I refuse to drown in them.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180037)

Defining the point you are attempting to make is entirely relevant.



Ladies and gentlemen the Emperor has no clothes.

For streaming to succeed it requires its competitors to irrationally cede their unique selling point and accessibility on every platform.

It requires competitors to bow before them, redesign their user interfaces.

Who are the average brain dead viewers that streamers so desperately need that are too lazy to navigate with their up and down keys to the content they actually want? Vegetating away on BBC 1 because the Sky remote is beyond their comprehension.

They do not exist, OB. They are a work of fiction you use to sooth yourself that you are right, against all evidence.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180062)

It’s your responses that are fiction, jfman. You are on a frolic of your own.

Streamers abandoning their unique selling points? How the hell do you make that out?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180074)

I didn't say streamers I said competitors. Once again you fail to comprehend that streamers are one part of the TV market as a whole.

Your "vision" above requires literally everyone else to redesign their interfaces and platforms to accommodate streaming services above linear. Why would they do that?

The average viewer doesn't want to switch on their television and immediately be bombarded with repetitive lists of content they don't subscribe to.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180132)

I do not ‘fail to comprehend’ anything. You make too many assumptions and now you are throwing your toys out of the pram.

No redesign of interfaces is necessary. You just click on the streamer of your choice, just as you click on a TV channel. Ever heard of Roku?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180148)

In what sense is this not calling for every major TV platform and every TV manufacturer to redesign their interfaces in favour of fledgeling streamers the end consumer may not even subscribe to?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180148)

I have, it’s rubbish that’s why almost nobody uses it as a primary device.

You yourself said:

‘ Live/linear/scheduled/conventional TV (whatever you want to call it) are all more prominent on Sky HD/Q and Virgin Media TiVo/360 boxes, and they are the obvious easy ways into the system. If you want to go to Netflix, Prime, etc, you need to go to the apps and get in that way.’

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180158)

Nobody is calling for anything. This will be in the hands of the TV platforms themselves. But given the trend towards streaming now, it would make sense to change the existing prominence towards the streamers rather than the (yawn) ‘conventional broadcast scheduled TV channels’, which are ultimately doomed anyway. The FAST channels will never command anywhere near the audiences of the streamers unless there is a future unforeseen innovation which captures the imagination.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180158)

Nobody is calling for anything. This will be in the hands of the TV platforms themselves. But given the trend towards streaming now, it would make sense to change the existing prominence towards the streamers rather than the (yawn) ‘conventional broadcast scheduled TV channels’, which are ultimately doomed anyway. The FAST channels will never command anywhere near the audiences of the streamers unless there is a future unforeseen innovation which captures the imagination.

All that is required is one button that allows you to give prominence to existing TV channels and a second to streamers on set-up, which can be altered as easily as altering the profiles on the 360. Then each time you go in, you get the choice of a channel guide (if you’ve selected the first button) or the streamers if the second has been selected.

As for finding programmes, all that is required is a central watchlist, which will require either the agreement of all the streamers or alternatively an intervention by Ofcom. Only Netflix appears to be causing problems over this.

I really find it difficult to grasp what it is you don’t understand. If you genuinely do have a problem in grasping this, it would help if you were more specific rather than giving me the usual cryptic comments.

---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------



Amazon and others are doing the same.

As for your last paragraph, I was describing the existing position. In the future, prominence will be given to on demand.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36180168)

It has nothing to do with lack of understanding OB. It’s simply mild exasperation at your lack of self-awareness. Whenever you write a sentence that includes the phrase ‘it would make sense to…’ or ‘all that is required…’ you’re skipping over the whole part where you have to convince multimillion-dollar broadcast companies *why* they should radically overturn their own cost-effective business models in order to satisfy your own vision of the future - a vision that has everything to do with what you personally find convenient and nothing to do with even a moment’s reflection on the mere possibility that not everyone wants to use their TV the way you do.

You talk a good game, OB, but so does everyone who calls their post-match local radio phone-in at 6 o’clock on a Saturday evening.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180207)

I’m not even convinced he personally finds it convenient.

It was an edgy call in 2014, pushed back at least once, he’s desperately keen to avoid extending once more.
Thus the onus is on Sky, Virgin, etc - the multimillion dollar companies you reference - to “make it work”.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36180239)

Less than half of Generation Z watch broadcast TV

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgm9z1dpkpo



It lists a few reasons, but the main one for me isnt listed - there is just nothing worth watching anymore.

I was one of the 12.1 million that watched the New Years Eve fireworks, but other than, there is pretty much nothing for me.

The main thing I still used to watch was Doctor Who - I gave up on the current nonsense, besides which its on Disney+ first now anyway.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36180168)

It has nothing to do with lack of understanding OB. It’s simply mild exasperation at your lack of self-awareness. Whenever you write a sentence that includes the phrase ‘it would make sense to…’ or ‘all that is required…’ you’re skipping over the whole part where you have to convince multimillion-dollar broadcast companies *why* they should radically overturn their own cost-effective business models in order to satisfy your own vision of the future - a vision that has everything to do with what you personally find convenient and nothing to do with even a moment’s reflection on the mere possibility that not everyone wants to use their TV the way you do.

You talk a good game, OB, but so does everyone who calls their post-match local radio phone-in at 6 o’clock on a Saturday evening.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180253)

Which linear broadcast channels have reduced their hours on the basis of their being less content available?

There’s plenty of content out there. There has never been more content.

In practice you have such a dystopian view of the future that the exact same series on a “streamer” would be good and on a linear channel like ITV1 would be bad without consideration of the content at all.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’m glad you are perfectly happy with this situation, jfman, but many of us are not

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180262)

If you are unhappy about the content on linear channels when you are more than free to subscribe to any streamer you please. Why are you unhappy? Why are you pushing for state intervention to accelerate it?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180264)

I do subscribe to the streamers I want, jfman, and once absolutely everything is available on demand, I will ditch the channels altogether. There are still one or two programmes that are not available on the streamers, but we are nearly there now. Virgin Stream may be the way to go for us.

Originally Posted by alanrogger007 (Post 36180374)

I think we're all just waiting for the day when everything is available on demand and we can ditch traditional TV channels for good

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180379)

I don’t think those who can’t get adequate broadband speeds are thinking that, to be fair. Everything is on demand for everyone who wants it in any case. There’s no benefit to ditching traditional tv channels for some time.

Just spent a few days at a holiday park in Cumbria. Wi-fi varied between 4 and 20 meg, 4G got 20-30. Enough to support a handful of “streaming” users at most.

Originally Posted by alanrogger007 (Post 36180374)

I think we're all just waiting for the day when everything is available on demand and we can ditch traditional TV channels for good

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180265)

So why are you unhappy? Maybe if we can get to the crux of that it’d spare us these circuitous threads?

What’s so special about Virgin Stream over their standard TV packages with recording features?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180379)

I don’t think those who can’t get adequate broadband speeds are thinking that, to be fair. Everything is on demand for everyone who wants it in any case. There’s no benefit to ditching traditional tv channels for some time.

Just spent a few days at a holiday park in Cumbria. Wi-fi varied between 4 and 20 meg, 4G got 20-30. Enough to support a handful of “streaming” users at most.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180391)

I am not ‘unhappy’! Where are you getting these views from?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’m glad you are perfectly happy with this situation, jfman, but many of us are not

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180391)

Certain audiences may struggle with broadband speeds initially, but that will be sorted.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36180395)

Sorted how ? and when ?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180394)

Your own words, OB.



I ask again why are you unhappy? What void exists in your life leaving you unfulfilled by the status quo where we’ve never had a more rich and diverse quantity of products in the pay-tv marketplace? (Setting aside the failing business models of “streamers” for a moment).

I assume you’ve missed me pointing out all the streaming services I subscribe to?

The difference is I’m able to disassociate in my mind my preferences as a consumer with the marketplace as a whole.

Guesswork.

Unsure how this is substantively different from the lowest priced triple play offering with a TV360.

As with every TV360 customer.

You’re showing your arse here, OB, by continuing to view both as distinct. Peacock in the USA, Now here, Discovery+ here all stream and offer both linear channels and on demand content over IP. Indeed, so does Virgin Stream!

Often stated, never evidenced.

Yet those that could move to entirely on demand offerings, don’t. You fail to ask yourself why this is.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180451)

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------


Where have I said I’m unhappy? Certainly, I dislike having to pay for TV channels when I get most content from streamers, but that is a temporary bugbear.

I am well aware that you also subscribe to streamers, which frankly appears to be a contradiction for you as you moan about them all the time.

I don’t know why it is that you cannot see that if I ditch the TV channels, I will be saving money! I have the Maxit package with Sky Cinema, by the way.

Your arguments sound desperate to me. Why are you telling me that some streamers also carry ‘live’ TV? Do you not realise that most people know that, and what’s it got to do with anything? We are in a transitional period and so of course, like Freely, we are being offered the choice. That will not last, of course, but I understand you cannot get your head around that.

As for your last comment, if TV channels are switched off, that choice will no longer exist. Just ask the ITV CEO!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180451)

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180451)

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36180454)

No one (except you as a straw man argument) has ever said that - the difference of opinion is that most people see a blended future (streaming and TV channels), whilst you insist ad infinitum that "there can be only one!…

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2024/08/1.gif


Also, you seem to be missing out the PSB remit in this "streaming only" future…

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36180458)

Apparently 97% of the UK now has access to some form of fibre broadband. Whether it's FTTC, VDSL, G. fast, cable, or FTTP.

As for energy. The National Grid have stated there is plenty of energy available for electric car charging so I'm sure it'll cope with some streaming:confused:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180488)

I understand completely the ‘blended future’ argument, but what you are missing is that this option incurs cost for the broadcasters and it is unnecessary. If that blended future choice is given to viewers, and is presented in a straight forward and intuitive manner via IPTV, the choice most people will gravitate to will be on demand, because that provides immediate gratification. Programmes can be accessed straight away rather than at a scheduled time and can be seen from the beginning rather than from part of the way through a series. That will lead to the ‘live’ TV, or whatever you want to label it, being switched off, simply because the broadcasters will no longer see the point in its continuation. Only government intervention is likely to change this.

As for the PSB remit, that is being reviewed. Why do you not believe that these things can be changed?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180488)

This has just become a trolling thread, which is a shame, because we could have some very interesting debates on subjects such as these.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36181445)

Slight addendum to the above post.

Most TVs have USB sockets which allow recording to an appropriate device from digital broadcasts.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181631)

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/military-u...ies-in-europe/

[EXTRACTS]

Russian threat means Europe is looking at military usage for digital terrestrial TV frequency band. A move that would threaten not just TV, but also wireless communications and potential future mobile network usage.

UK broadcasters are pushing toward a mid-2035 terrestrial TV switch-off in favour of a streaming-only future. They’ve shown little or no interest in maintaining terrestrial TV in any form beyond this date, citing costs.

It appears that the terrestrial TV switch off May come earlier than I thought.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181631)

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/military-u...ies-in-europe/

[EXTRACTS]

Russian threat means Europe is looking at military usage for digital terrestrial TV frequency band. A move that would threaten not just TV, but also wireless communications and potential future mobile network usage.

UK broadcasters are pushing toward a mid-2035 terrestrial TV switch-off in favour of a streaming-only future. They’ve shown little or no interest in maintaining terrestrial TV in any form beyond this date, citing costs.

It appears that the terrestrial TV switch off May come earlier than I thought.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181642)

Facts you conveniently omit:
1. UHF’s primary use in relevant legislation is cultural. Military has only a secondary claim.
2. It is only the German army that’s even floating this. A secondary user of UHF spectrum in one country, speculating about use of spectrum that is subject to international treaty.

And, from the link highlighted in the very phrase ‘little or no interest in maintaining terrestrial TV’ beyond 2035 are these delightful nuggets of fact:

1. Ofcom believes 27% of homes will still rely exclusively on DTT in 2040 (i.e. 16 years from now)
2. Ofcom has proposed 3 ways of ensuring the viability of free-to-air TV, two of which involve not switching off DTT at all, but rather making it more streamlined.
3. The third option, switching off over-the-air broadcasts entirely, could occur ‘at some future date’ (i.e., unspecified) and only at the end of a transition process has yet to be designed or agreed, and which Ofcom believes would require 8 to 10 years.

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/ofcom-free...ld-be-removed/

If you think any of the above in any way supports your fantasies about broadcast TV being turned off in the foreseeable future, please let me know who your dealer is because you’re smoking some primo junk.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181680)

I didn’t write the article, Chris.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181683)

No, you merely cited it as evidence that you were even more correct than you earlier thought.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181683)

I didn’t rubbish your source - I simply quoted parts of it that you were trying to ignore - because they addressed the points you made.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181683)

Again, my source of information is the exact same website you quoted from, and frequently quote from, in this thread. They don’t seem to think Ofcom’s concern about Project Kangaroo’s potential to distort the UK streaming market was a reason not to quote Ofcom in their report. Not sure why you should think that either.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181684)

I said ‘it may come’ earlier than I predicted.

SNIP

I

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181684)

I said ‘it may come’ earlier than I predicted.



I wasn’t ignoring the other issues set out in the source, I was merely discussing the parts of it that were relevant to my post. I attached the whole article and made no attempt to hide it. You quoted the part of it that you thought backed up your argument, which is fine. That constitutes a discussion.

Quite, and that’s fine, Chris. No need to get so upset over this. The source quoted Ofcom, but my point about Project Kangaroo was that this was a good example of Ofcom’s inability to keep up with developments in its own field of ‘expertise’, and so it was reasonable for me to question the value of their views regarding the future a decade ahead. Since Netflix came along, Ofcom has been getting increasingly out of touch. They are being left behind, which is shameful, because we are relying on them to create the right environment for British content providers to operate in the global market.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

I well remember the days when we waited with excitement to witness the launch of a brand new channel. I was excited by the advent of the Sci-Fi channel, even though the programmes shown were already well past their sell-by date. We even had a family get together to see the first broadcast of the Disney Channel.

I get all of that, I shared in that excitement and anticipation. I loved the very thought of new channels launching, having been confined to the handful of channels we had been used to.

But those days are long gone. Nowadays, there are some who become sweaty at the thought of a new shopping channel or the like launching, because that really is the only kind of news we ever get of a new channel these days. The overwhelming trend is now for branding changes and channel closures and for even more new material being lost to the streamers.

As streaming increasingly becomes a reality in people’s lives across the UK, the discerning TV audience is starting to appreciate the brave new world of choice and on demand viewing. No need any more to fiddle about with recordings and HDD management.

The regular contributors who continually bitch about what I say regarding the future of TV are slaves to the schedules, are obsessed with channel numbers and minute changes that they pick up on Virgin’s system that may (or more likely may not) indicate something major is about to happen. They are wedded to the idea that nothing will change as regards the systems on offer because of existing issues with new technology such as latency (that are being resolved). They actually don’t want anything to change.

For you guys, there will be some relief to savour with the FAST channels, which unfortunately are a very poor shadow of the popular channels we are used to, although it’s anyone’s guess how long they will last. But if you don’t mind selecting FAST channels for your viewing, only to find you are half way through the programme with no rewind button: well there’s no accounting for such a decadent choice when an online demand option is also available to select your programme of choice as and when you want to watch it, from the beginning. Pluto and others actually give you that option.

But despite my all my reservations, I get that awe some of you have with FAST channels too, but I think that will wear off pretty soon. Pluto fascinated me for a couple of weeks or so as well until the novelty wore off.

I have to say that sooner or later, you guys will have to wake up or you’ll find yourself watching blank screens. Sometimes I get the feeling that one or two of you wouldn’t even notice.

Like it or not, streaming is coming, and the choice between that and scheduled TV is only transitional. Everything I’ve predicted is coming to pass given that we still have over 10 years to go until 2035. The BBC is preparing for a streaming only schedule, as is ITV. You can scoff all you like, but in the end, that steadfastly conservative attitude that is in abundance on this forum is not going to do your credibility any good at all.

With that said, you will soon find, in the not so distant future, that the TNT Sports programmes are available on Discovery+ (or its successor) only, like it or not. Sorry, but it’s not my decision. It’s just the way it’s going.

Oh, and by the way, the electricity supply will hold up just fine. As long as our new PM doesn’t shut down all the gas fired power stations before clean energy comes through reliably in abundance! The managers of the National Grid is well aware of the exponential increase in future demand that is coming, and will adapt as necessary, as it has always done.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181684)

I have to say that sooner or later, you guys will have to wake up or you’ll find yourself watching blank screens. Sometimes I get the feeling that one or two of you wouldn’t even notice.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36181692)

I'm not convinced you're trying to win people over, Old Boy. :D

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181684)

I said ‘it may come’ earlier than I predicted.



I wasn’t ignoring the other issues set out in the source, I was merely discussing the parts of it that were relevant to my post. I attached the whole article and made no attempt to hide it. You quoted the part of it that you thought backed up your argument, which is fine. That constitutes a discussion.

Quite, and that’s fine, Chris. No need to get so upset over this. The source quoted Ofcom, but my point about Project Kangaroo was that this was a good example of Ofcom’s inability to keep up with developments in its own field of ‘expertise’, and so it was reasonable for me to question the value of their views regarding the future a decade ahead. Since Netflix came along, Ofcom has been getting increasingly out of touch. They are being left behind, which is shameful, because we are relying on them to create the right environment for British content providers to operate in the global market.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

I well remember the days when we waited with excitement to witness the launch of a brand new channel. I was excited by the advent of the Sci-Fi channel, even though the programmes shown were already well past their sell-by date. We even had a family get together to see the first broadcast of the Disney Channel.

I get all of that, I shared in that excitement and anticipation. I loved the very thought of new channels launching, having been confined to the handful of channels we had been used to.

But those days are long gone. Nowadays, there are some who become sweaty at the thought of a new shopping channel or the like launching, because that really is the only kind of news we ever get of a new channel these days. The overwhelming trend is now for branding changes and channel closures and for even more new material being lost to the streamers.

As streaming increasingly becomes a reality in people’s lives across the UK, the discerning TV audience is starting to appreciate the brave new world of choice and on demand viewing. No need any more to fiddle about with recordings and HDD management.

The regular contributors who continually bitch about what I say regarding the future of TV are slaves to the schedules, are obsessed with channel numbers and minute changes that they pick up on Virgin’s system that may (or more likely may not) indicate something major is about to happen. They are wedded to the idea that nothing will change as regards the systems on offer because of existing issues with new technology such as latency (that are being resolved). They actually don’t want anything to change.

For you guys, there will be some relief to savour with the FAST channels, which unfortunately are a very poor shadow of the popular channels we are used to, although it’s anyone’s guess how long they will last. But if you don’t mind selecting FAST channels for your viewing, only to find you are half way through the programme with no rewind button: well there’s no accounting for such a decadent choice when an online demand option is also available to select your programme of choice as and when you want to watch it, from the beginning. Pluto and others actually give you that option.

But despite my all my reservations, I get that awe some of you have with FAST channels too, but I think that will wear off pretty soon. Pluto fascinated me for a couple of weeks or so as well until the novelty wore off.

I have to say that sooner or later, you guys will have to wake up or you’ll find yourself watching blank screens. Sometimes I get the feeling that one or two of you wouldn’t even notice.

Like it or not, streaming is coming, and the choice between that and scheduled TV is only transitional. Everything I’ve predicted is coming to pass given that we still have over 10 years to go until 2035. The BBC is preparing for a streaming only schedule, as is ITV. You can scoff all you like, but in the end, that steadfastly conservative attitude that is in abundance on this forum is not going to do your credibility any good at all.

With that said, you will soon find, in the not so distant future, that the TNT Sports programmes are available on Discovery+ (or its successor) only, like it or not. Sorry, but it’s not my decision. It’s just the way it’s going.

Oh, and by the way, the electricity supply will hold up just fine. As long as our new PM doesn’t shut down all the gas fired power stations before clean energy comes through reliably in abundance! The managers of the National Grid is well aware of the exponential increase in future demand that is coming, and will adapt as necessary, as it has always done.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181684)

I said ‘it may come’ earlier than I predicted.



I wasn’t ignoring the other issues set out in the source, I was merely discussing the parts of it that were relevant to my post. I attached the whole article and made no attempt to hide it. You quoted the part of it that you thought backed up your argument, which is fine. That constitutes a discussion.

Quite, and that’s fine, Chris. No need to get so upset over this. The source quoted Ofcom, but my point about Project Kangaroo was that this was a good example of Ofcom’s inability to keep up with developments in its own field of ‘expertise’, and so it was reasonable for me to question the value of their views regarding the future a decade ahead. Since Netflix came along, Ofcom has been getting increasingly out of touch. They are being left behind, which is shameful, because we are relying on them to create the right environment for British content providers to operate in the global market.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

I well remember the days when we waited with excitement to witness the launch of a brand new channel. I was excited by the advent of the Sci-Fi channel, even though the programmes shown were already well past their sell-by date. We even had a family get together to see the first broadcast of the Disney Channel.

I get all of that, I shared in that excitement and anticipation. I loved the very thought of new channels launching, having been confined to the handful of channels we had been used to.

But those days are long gone. Nowadays, there are some who become sweaty at the thought of a new shopping channel or the like launching, because that really is the only kind of news we ever get of a new channel these days. The overwhelming trend is now for branding changes and channel closures and for even more new material being lost to the streamers.

As streaming increasingly becomes a reality in people’s lives across the UK, the discerning TV audience is starting to appreciate the brave new world of choice and on demand viewing. No need any more to fiddle about with recordings and HDD management.

The regular contributors who continually bitch about what I say regarding the future of TV are slaves to the schedules, are obsessed with channel numbers and minute changes that they pick up on Virgin’s system that may (or more likely may not) indicate something major is about to happen. They are wedded to the idea that nothing will change as regards the systems on offer because of existing issues with new technology such as latency (that are being resolved). They actually don’t want anything to change.

For you guys, there will be some relief to savour with the FAST channels, which unfortunately are a very poor shadow of the popular channels we are used to, although it’s anyone’s guess how long they will last. But if you don’t mind selecting FAST channels for your viewing, only to find you are half way through the programme with no rewind button: well there’s no accounting for such a decadent choice when an online demand option is also available to select your programme of choice as and when you want to watch it, from the beginning. Pluto and others actually give you that option.

But despite my all my reservations, I get that awe some of you have with FAST channels too, but I think that will wear off pretty soon. Pluto fascinated me for a couple of weeks or so as well until the novelty wore off.

I have to say that sooner or later, you guys will have to wake up or you’ll find yourself watching blank screens. Sometimes I get the feeling that one or two of you wouldn’t even notice.

Like it or not, streaming is coming, and the choice between that and scheduled TV is only transitional. Everything I’ve predicted is coming to pass given that we still have over 10 years to go until 2035. The BBC is preparing for a streaming only schedule, as is ITV. You can scoff all you like, but in the end, that steadfastly conservative attitude that is in abundance on this forum is not going to do your credibility any good at all.

With that said, you will soon find, in the not so distant future, that the TNT Sports programmes are available on Discovery+ (or its successor) only, like it or not. Sorry, but it’s not my decision. It’s just the way it’s going.

Oh, and by the way, the electricity supply will hold up just fine. As long as our new PM doesn’t shut down all the gas fired power stations before clean energy comes through reliably in abundance! The managers of the National Grid is well aware of the exponential increase in future demand that is coming, and will adapt as necessary, as it has always done.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36181692)

I'm not convinced you're trying to win people over, Old Boy. :D

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181702)

They never will be, Andrew. Heads are buried much too far in the sand. There’s no hope for them, no reasoning for them. Just that repetitive DeGaulle ‘No’ response.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181702)

They never will be, Andrew. Heads are buried much too far in the sand. There’s no hope for them, no reasoning for them. Just that repetitive DeGaulle ‘No’ response.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The regular contributors who continually bitch about what I say regarding the future of TV are slaves to the schedules

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181702)

They never will be, Andrew. Heads are buried much too far in the sand. There’s no hope for them, no reasoning for them. Just that repetitive DeGaulle ‘No’ response.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36181705)

"Non!", actually… ;)

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36181730)

I really would stop worrying about the future of TV too much OB. Streaming or otherwise, does it matter?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181746)

No, it doesn’t. It’s a mystery why the usual suspects get so exercised about it. All I did was to say what I thought would happen. Then all this…. :banghead:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36181746)

H’mmm. I translated it for you.

---------- Post added at 23:56 ---------- Previous post was at 23:49 ----------


No, it doesn’t. It’s a mystery why the usual suspects get so exercised about it. All I did was to say what I thought would happen. Then all this…. :banghead: