Re: The future of television
 

That's good Re: subtitles.

I suspect that any systems that still allow recordings will eventually adopt this system though.

This will mean that we will have gone full circle to the days when viewers had no way to avoid the adverts being played out (unless they pay) and to a situation where TV channels control what is watched, only this time they will be able to harvest and possibly sell our data.

Perhaps it will also be used to detect TV Licence evasion too??

Re: The future of television
 

Given you're second on that list, by a mile, not really sure what your point is ?

Re: The future of television
 

My point is that OB’s claim of indifference doesn’t stack up. Evidenced by the multiple threads he’s generated on the same subject, and the tendency for many threads to be sidetracked by it being the reason for this one as Chris explains in post #1.

Re: The future of television
 

I posted my opinions on a discussion forum and people started discussing them :cry:

Re: The future of television
 

Very meta… ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Except it wasn’t a discussion, was it? It was trolling, baiting and character assassination. Debating is one thing some forum members find difficult to cope with.

I must say, you lot are pretty good at ridicule. I wonder who will have the last laugh?

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

This is not really news, Richard. If you stop subscribing to Sky Cinema programmes, you will find that all your recordings from these channels disappear. This has been the case for some time.

It is wrong, I agree. I do believe that you should be able to access all content from on demand on payment of a subscription or on pay per view. But we are in the hands of the content providers until such time that legislators decide to change it.

---------- Post added at 20:30 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

I must have spent most of my time on here answering your interminable questions on what is linear TV and other similar nonsense and your criticisms of points I’ve never even made. Despite seeing what you are doing, I’ve entered into the spirit of responding for those who are genuinely interested.

Look in the mirror, jfman.

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------

For any one post I put on here with one or more links, I get multiple trolling responses to which I try my best to respond with respect.

The rest is history, and it’s all here! ^

I can assure you, it matters not to me if we don’t exactly meet 2035! This seems to bother you rather than it does me! I simply stated how I think things would look in 20 years’ time (back in 2015).

I think at least a substantial amount, if not all, of my prediction so far is exactly on track. The only thing I didn’t anticipate was the advent of the FAST channels.

Re: The future of television
 

Yes, OB. You've never baited anyone.

While we are relieved it's not your decision since it would leave millions without television at all just to lubricate your fantasy of no broadcast, linear television before the market - supply and demand side - is prepared for is.

If (when) 2035 comes to pass with linear, scheduled television continues it won't be because of 4 or 5 users of a niche technology forum. It's the millions of households absolutely passive to the idea at all. The millions who watch television "live" despite 5 or 6 tuner devices sitting below their TV. The cable customers who watch BBC live despite having it on demand for twenty years.

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

The problem is your prediction is binary and you've relentlessly branded the notion of linear channels remaining as absurd. Whether as a minimalist DTT service, PSB or otherwise, or a series of channels to showcase the best pay-tv content available on Sky or anywhere else.

You've been posting about Pluto TV since 2015. I'd not talk yourself down, OB. You are a pioneer on the forum of the concept of linear-over-IP (FAST channels).

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...82&postcount=9

Re: The future of television
 

I’ve learned to give as good as I get on this Forum.

As for the rest of your post, you really don’t get it, do you? Viewers will not have the choice if the channels are wound up and replaced by on demand only. In the last 10 years, TV audiences have been watching less and less by way of our TV channels and audience growth for the streamers is pretty well the same as for the channels now. In another 10 years, the audience for the channels will have diminished to such an extent that to continue supporting them will no longer be worthwhile and there will be the same old content on repeat, watched by people advertisers are not so interested in.

Not absurd, but I think it is unlikely. Go into the streamers nowadays and you will find trailers playing in the background. Why do you need to select channels in order to do this?

While it is possible for channels and streamers to co-exist, by now even you must be asking yourself why this would be necessary, and you refuse to contemplate that we may be losing the capacity to use the bandwidth anyway!

I guess 5G broadcasts are possible, but there appear to be few signs of interest in that option in this country.

Once again, you are fighting this argument tooth and nail as if this is my decision to choose the streaming only path. It’s actually nothing to do with me, guv, I’m just reporting what I see as the likely outcome. No need to get so exercised about it.

Other views are available.

Re: The future of television
 

I expect to be able to access my own recordings from FTA channels at no further cost indefinitely.

Re: The future of television
 

No evidence for this.

Not an unreasonable observation, I’ve always said it’s the expectation this growth hits 100%.

No evidence for this. What is the minimum number of viewers required to sustain a linear channel for someone like Sky, or the BBC, who own the content rights anyway?

Your misconception that linear and streaming are somehow contradictory and mutually exclusive positions for some of the largest companies in the media market to pursue one (and one only) is the inherent flaw in all of your speculative “analysis”.

Nobody who doesn’t already subscribe to an app is going to enter that app to see trailers for content they don’t subscribe to on a voluntary basis. How do you package this for non-subscribers to upsell? What are they getting in return?

Are we losing that bandwidth by 2035?

I’m not exercised about anything - I’m very happy that everyone gets to enjoy a range of products in a diverse pay-tv ecosystem.

It’s your visceral response to anyone who comprehend any alternative, based on what rational consumers in the marketplace will continue to watch and rational profit seeking companies may provide, that prolongs these threads.

Your Netflix Nostradamus shtick provides light entertainment as each prediction unravels. No adverts on streamers. Blowing Sky out the water for Premiership rights.

Re: The future of television
 

Until you can’t.

Re: The future of television
 

Exactly. The all new singing & dancing streaming future is great news for broadcasters, but not for consumers.

Re: The future of television
 

I'm not sure it's good for broadcasters. Rupert Murdoch knew the golden era was coming to an end which is why he sold Sky (to Comcast) and most of Fox (to Disney).

The beneficiaries of the current situation to date have been on the production side (studios like Elstree and Shepperton and beyond, writers, actors, producers, directors etc).

Re: The future of television
 

It’s ultimately good for rights holders, they get to extract money from consumers for content every time on their streaming service.

In the dystopian streaming future where you are unable to record and retain even a few hours of your favourite content not only will you have to subscribe to be able to retain the ability to view such content you might even have to follow it around as it moves from one fledgling streamer to another. All the while unable to skip any ads or trailers said provider mandates to be included.

Gone are the days when you could rely on the economies of scale of a single pay-tv platforms to provide the broadest range of content from TV and movie studios with an extensive back catalogue.

Given the precarious financial situation of many of the “streamers” they’ll be eager to exploit more ways of monetising end users now that growth has stalled.

Re: The future of television
 

It does beg the question as to why the channels are encouraging people to use the streamers by ensuring that all episodes of a new series can be seen before the whole series has been shown on the TV channels. They are all at it, with ITV even withholding new originals from their main channel, until a certain amount of time has passed when it has been exclusive to ITVX.

There is a definite push towards streaming, and those who doubt what I’ve been saying about where all this is leading need to address the alternative reason for this blatant encouragement, because it certainly eludes me.

Re: The future of television
 

It’s funny how the answer is on the tip of your tongue but you can’t bring yourself to say it. It’s the same thing that will give linear, and broadcast, television a far longer lifespan than you propose. They are responding to consumer demand and able to accommodate both.

Since the advent of the first generation TiVo on the United States broadcasters have been looking for ways to stop consumers skipping adverts. Streaming is the Trojan horse by which it can be delivered.

Re: The future of television
 

I really don’t understand your attitude to the takeover of the streamers. Your characterisation of what I think is far from the truth. Viewers are being encouraged to move to the streamers rather than relying on the ‘linear’ channels, as you are now happy to call them. (Took a while, but we got there in the end).

The streamers are doing rather well, all things considered and are now looking for more ways to attract subscribers. The free or low-cost advertising options offered will go along way to increasing the yield from subscribers, although yes, they will be non—skippable commercials. This will ensure that advertisers know that by advertising on the streamers, the audience will have to watch them (unless viewers use the time to go to the loo or make a cuppa!). Quite an advantage over ‘linear’ (I’m still getting used to using that word - much less convoluted than referring to ‘conventional broadcast TV channels’!).

Welcome to 2024!

https://hardmanandco.com/streamed-content-takes-over/

Re: The future of television
 

It’s mildly entertaining how you now push non-skippable adverts as an ‘advantage’ for streamers as if you always were the sage who knew it would be thus, whereas in fact when this whole sorry saga began, you swore blind it would never happen, pointed to the boss (at the time) of Netflix saying it’d never happen, and jeered at those of us who said no business ever says never, and professed you were shocked - shocked - that anyone could ever consider such a thing.

… and also how you still don’t understand why we’re not minded to rate you as much of a futurologist.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m unclear how I’ve used the term “linear” in the last post is any different from how I have before, but if you could outline the difference that may be helpful for everyone else trying to understand what you mean by your inconsistent use of the term.

I’ve nothing against streaming television as I’ve explained before - I currently subscribe to four (five if you count Prime, although it’s not my reason for subscribing) targeted at 4 different countries.

My main contention is your flawed observations on the market as a whole which is very much distinct from the personal preferences of me, Chris, Hugh, Andrew or anyone else you have in mind when you vent your spleen in the direction of forum members.

Interesting that you view restrictions to mandate viewing adverts as a “benefit” in our previously low cost, no advert streaming future.

If that article represents a positive vision of the streaming future - gaming and gambling - I’m more reassured than ever that a significant enough proportion of the population will continue to reject it.

Re: The future of television
 

I said ‘if’. In any case, how can I possibly prove to you what has not yet happened? I can’t link to the future, and even if I could, you’d find some obscure or silly reason to rubbish it. May I remind you that we are talking about a prediction relating to future developments here. It’s already half way to coming a reality and we’ve not even reached 50% of the way through the period yet.

You are clearly not grasping this argument. You seem to think that the TV channels will continue right up until the last person has stopped watching them. This is a curious and unrealistic stance for you to take. Firstly, there would come a tipping point when it was no longer worth the time and money to spend on ‘linear’ channels, and secondly, the transmitters and satellite transponders are unlikely to continue to be available by 2035. I cannot see any reason for the ‘linear’ channels continuing via IPTV due to diminishing content and the better choice that on demand viewing offers. In the end, it’s the broadcasters’ decision, not the audience’s, and that decision will be forced by diminishing advertising revenues.

My dear chap, I cannot evidence the future as you request, and you can’t prove your view that ‘linear’ channels and streaming will continue to exist side by side.

In my view, the change to streaming only will come when the existing contracts for the use of transmitters and transponders ends. Your insistence that broadcasters would use two different methods of content provision when one would do, is bonkers. Successful businesses survive by keeping costs low and maximising income.

Ever heard of advertising and reviews? Come on, jfman, use your imagination.

Yes, by the looks of it (as explained previously).

You could have fooled me! Your responses to any suggestion that your precious TV channels will be lost convey just a little hysteria.

I have considered the alternative of which you speak, but I’ve ruled it out for all the reasons I've given.

None of my predictions have ‘unravelled’ although FAST channels are now in the mix, and I acknowledge that these will continue. The streamers continue to provide ‘no ads’ options and it was the Netflix CEO who said there would never be any advertisements on Netflix.

As for the Premier League, the point I have been making is that the global streamers could blow Sky out of the water if they wished to, because simply they have more resources, and that is undeniable. They have not yet chosen to do so, but sports streaming is becoming more prevalent now, as I am sure you will acknowledge.

Re: The future of television
 

Yes OB, I'm fully aware we are still 11 years away from your being proven wrong definitively however many of your assumptions have proven to be incorrect in the interim.

No adverts, undoubtedly appealing to anyone who watches television, has been debunked. Quick movement of "streamers" into the top tier of sports rights has not came to pass.

A lovely straw man argument against a point nobody has actually made on the forum. Nobody, anywhere, has claimed linear would continue until the last viewer.

Nor would a content owner have additional rights costs in broadcasting both.

I can watch it on Peacock. I'm unsure why profit seeking, rational, companies would develop and offer such a product if it were truly as straightforward as your simplistic analysis claims.

In what way does maximising income mean closing existing revenue streams?

I'll leave imaginary futures as your area of expertise.

Once again you needlessly personalise your rebuttals in complete ignorance of my viewing habits and giving disproportionate weight to those which you imagined.

I'd be more concerned that rational capitalists exit the market unable to bid the fair market price.

Re: The future of television
 

What nonsense you do talk! Every premium streamer has an ad-free option, which was my point back then. You could watch content free of ads, a position that remains true now, and I think always will be. I will not be proven wrong, and you cannot prove otherwise, so let’s wait and see.

[QUOTE=jfman;36181875]

Not at all your favourite ‘straw man’ scenario. Your argument is based on viewer preferences, whereas I am saying that the broadcasters, not the viewers, will determine the position.


You forgot NOW. Yes, I am aware of them of course, but these are not typical streamers, and when Sky switch off their ‘linear’ channels, this will cease to be an issue.

Now you are just being silly. One of the reasons put forward by the Beeb for BBC3 to go ‘online only’ was cost, do you not remember that?

That’s not one of your most intelligent answers to a response I have made to one of your idiotic questions, jfman. Clearly you have no answer, have you?

I know (at least according to your posts) that you use a number of streamers, which makes your hysterical responses even more perplexing. Clearly you understand the value of using streamers, but you steadfastly assert that people prefer TV channels and they would be somehow deprived without them! Priceless!

I note your concern. :confused:

Re: The future of television
 

There must be better causes in your life OB? How about supporting John Redwood in his hour of need , or saving the Panda, or Wokingham Town FC ? They need your support more than streaming TV :).

Re: The future of television
 

This absolutely was not the unique selling point of streaming. Something as absurd as “you can pay a price premium to skip ads just as you can with a hard drive recorder” would have been so ridiculous it’d have been noted.

This is not how competitive markets work, OB. So long as rational consumers in the marketplace continue to use their eyeballs to watch television rational capitalists - ITV, Five, Sky - will have no reason to cannibalise their revenue streams to indulge your completely arbitrary date.

The fact you perceive this is an “issue” at all is testament to the perverse prism through which you view the television market. The fact that other people, having no discernible effect on anything at all, can rationally consume television other than in the manner you prefer, leaves you incandescent with rage clutching at every straw from every blog going. Opining about everything from 5G to World War 3 just to switch off a broadcast mechanism millions of people - including subscribers to streaming services - consume on a regular basis despite time shifting and on demand being around for decades.

And the reason they brought it back was nobody watched it!

I was extremely pleased with that response, to be honest. Imagining things doesn’t bring them into existence by sheer will.

Another straw man. However you are correct in one narrow respect - the arbitrary and needless removal of digital terrestrial would deprive television services millions of households that either cannot get, or choose not to subscribe to, internet services capable of carrying streaming services.

The viewing preferences for the public as a whole are a matter of public record across linear, on demand, etc. through ratings and Ofcom surveys.

I understand the value of content in a technologically agnostic way, not that I expect rights holders would necessarily approve of me taking up services not targeted at the UK.

I don’t sit there and be a slave to whatever the Netflix window wants to promote to me because 20,000 or less people watched it in the UK in the last 7 days and make an assumption of quality on that basis.

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:21 ----------

I suspect he will be here well into the night calling for Ofcom to switch off TV masts despite millions of households using them. All to savour that dream of one day watching the premium sports content currently on Sky from an American streamer, at greater cost, on a 45 second delay with interactive betting adverts. Press red or green to bet 3 days subscription on who gets the next throw in. Then they’ll cut you off for the rest of the game once you get it wrong.

Re: The future of television
 

Your perverse views don’t line up with the facts. The Netflix CEO originally stated that Netflix would not have ads. So clearly, that was the original intention - a library of content, uninterrupted by ads. That’s how DVDs worked, remember, and Netflix replaced Blockbusters.

You are also incorrect in stating that this supposed USP was that you could ‘skip ads’. This is incorrect. You don’t need to skip ads if the ads aren’t there in the first place. The USP was clearly the vast video library at one’s fingertips, which you could select from just like Blockbusters, but without getting out of your armchair. Other streamers such as Amazon Prime were set up on a similar basis, without ads.

As time has passed, and after shedloads of money have been spent on content, and debts have mounted due to the initial investment and the need to continue to create more and more originals of a suitable quality, the streamers have hit on the idea of cheaper subscriptions with ads that people can opt for, increasing their customer base while increasing yield still further with the money gained from commercials.

Note that the absence of ads on the premium package has been preserved, and with time I hope the streamers will provide a more limited library with ads free of charge to increase their audience and revenue from advertising still further.

So why are the broadcasters already encouraging viewers to switch to their on demand offerings then? You can watch a whole series in one go on demand, whereas you have to watch it over a period of days or weeks on scheduled TV. If the broadcasters were not meaning to encourage people to rely on streaming, why would they not add an episode at a time to align with the conventional TV channels?

Channel 5 has even taken to making the first episode of a series available on its channel and telling us that to see the rest, we have to go to the streamer.

Open your eyes, jfman. What you keep saying is impossible is already happening.

You are the one perceiving it as an ‘issue’ - you are the one who made the point that I was answering.

I am well aware that at present, many people consume TV through the ‘linear’ channels as well as through streaming. I am also well aware that a lot of people currently watch scheduled TV only. What is your point? What I have been saying is that in the future, that choice may not, and probably will not, be available. People can’t watch on a service that has been pulled.

I don’t know why you perceive me being in a ‘rage’ about this. You’re the one relentlessly picking over the bones on this subject like your life depended on it. I could ask you why you keep carrying on with this same old argument. You may disagree, which is your right, but you are so determined to have everyone believe that I am wrong, you just can’t leave it alone, can you?

I am opining over nothing. As long as I have choices, as I have now, I am happy. The demise of ‘linear’ TV is simply my view of what I see as where this is all leading. You don’t see it. Fine. Watch and learn.

We have covered that already, and you may recall that I said right from the start that they pulled the channel too early. That was a tactical mistake on their part.

How bizarre! I would say back to you that imagining that a service will be in place forever just because you want it to be so doesn’t make it happen either.

I’m not making anything happen. I’m observing. You are burying your head in the sand with your fingers in your ears singing “La la la” at the top of your voice.

You do like your straw men, don’t you? You see them everywhere. You must have watched too much Worzel Gummidge back in the day. PS - he’s not real!

You say the move to digital only would be ‘arbitrary and needless’ despite the evidence that transmitters will be used for other purposes in the next decade and that most homes are now connected to broadband. It is also what the broadcasters are pushing for. Transmitters and satellite transponders are expensive, and it costs more to run ‘linear’ channels than it does to add content to a streamer.

It is not a matter of ‘what the public want’ which you keep repeating over and over. It’s what the broadcasters decide - why don’t you get that? People cannot tap into a service that doesn’t exist.

The rest of your point is rather vague - I don’t get the point you are making. Nobody is a slave to Netflix, but many people are slaves to the schedules.

Re: The future of television
 

This seems like a needlessly pedantic interpretation of what I indicated. To the end user it would have looked the same. Regardless, it was a myth. Bait and switch from the streaming services that are inserting unstoppable ads and charging price premiums to avoid them.

In other words - as many forum members indicated to you at the time - the low cost streaming future that you prophesied was a complete myth.

Price premiums, price rises. All trying to salvage something from an inherently unsustainable business model.

Why wouldn't they? Unskippable ads. They're quite happy to deteriorate the viewing experience to improve the bottom line. It's got nothing to do with viewers preferences.

You keep telling me to open my eyes yet when I tell you what is observably true in the present (broadcasters using both linear and streaming) you tell me that's irrelevant - which is it?

Why would Channel 5, keen to promote it's content, readily give up it's position of being beamed free to air into 28 million households?

But why would rational profit seeking capitalists seek to cannibalise their own revenue streams in this irrational manner?

You really don't understand the free market do you? If someone ceases to provide a service that people someone else will step in to satisfy customer demand if it is there. The broadcasters needlessly cannibalising their revenue streams is putting the egg before the chicken. In a competitive marketplace - which television undoubtedly is - these marginal gains will absolutely be the difference between content providers surviving or not.

No broadcaster on DTT is going to readily give up these positions. It's free money, raises their profile and complements their streaming offering.

I'm not sure how you can claim to be completely indifferent given the words you are devoting to this despite no indication from the regulator, the BBC, ITV, Sky or any of the other major broadcasters that they have plans to cease their broadcast linear television offerings. Even if they did, there's no indication they won't attempt to create a linear-over-IP offering to cement their own status at the top of EPGs as everyone switches on their television.

You say 'watch and learn' as if you have a track record of being correct.

Re: The future of television
 

Sigh! Why don't/can't you two agree to disagree and move on?

Re: The future of television
 

I predict the future of TV will more hardware gimmicks to get the punters to shell out for new screens, increased ads with no ff facility, less original UK content/production. Repeated increased channels / increased imported crap. ie. An increase in quantity, decrease in quality. Everything to increase profits and disadvantage the consumer.

Try the radio or your local theatre instead :)

Re: The future of television
 

Well, I agree, but I keep being faced with this persistent questioning on issues that are perfectly clear. It’s like Groundhog Day on here, so I’ll bow out of this current bout of argument from jfman - he knows the answers to these points very well as we’ve been through it a million times before.

Thanks for the intervention.

Re: The future of television
 

It was just spin. I refer you to this post from 9 years ago:
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=324

Re: The future of television
 

I’m pretty sure that income from advertisements on Netflix was not in the original business plan.

I believe you had a point about the difficulty in including ads in the stream, but I don’t think Netflix wanted to incorporate ads when it started off. I think they probably thought that global income would more than cover their costs and make them a nice handsome profit. Either that was a miscalculation, there was too much uncontrolled expenditure on content or perhaps they didn’t anticipate the amount of competition there would be with all these other streamers getting in on the act.

But a cheaper or free ads option was an obvious step to take as the market started to mature.

Re: The future of television
 

Old Boy, getting the wrong end of the stick since 2015.

Here’s a gem from the same thread:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1724503154

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...4&postcount=66

But don’t forget, he never said, or implied, that he was predicting the landscape in 10 years. Honest.

Re: The future of television
 

I gave up reading them ... :zzz:

Re: The future of television
 

I'm unsure why you single me out as holding your claims to account when plenty of others do. Also, that wasn't in bold so it's not a mod intervention.

I've equally no interest in your circuitous nonsense - however to that end it'd be helpful if you didn't resort to ad-hominem attacks, skewed by your interpretation that I have a preference for linear broadcasting. I personally do not - most of my viewing (aside the BBC, or live sport) has been time shifted since the advent of Sky+, however I'm capable of commenting on the whole marketplace as distinct from my own viewing habits, noting that a change on the scale that you predict often requires significant regulatory intervention to facilitate it (e.g. digital switch over).

I'll leave you to address the posts by spiderplant or Chris for the time being.

Re: The future of television
 

Don’t you start!

I think most people agree that things look very different now, with about half the viewing now through the streamers. Think what a difference another decade will make.

Re: The future of television
 

About 15%

https://news.cision.com/ericsson/r/t...emand,c2245296

Re: The future of television
 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/media-use-a...the-uks-media/

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/...k.pdf?v=371192

According to BARB, SVoD/AVoD (streamers such as Netflix, Disney+, etc.) are watched (on average) in homes 38 minutes per day, whilst Live TV is watched 108 minutes per day, recorded playback 25 minutes per day, and BVoD (Catch-up TV from Broadcasters) 20 minutes per day.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1724515713

Re: The future of television
 

That report is from 2015!

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/long...k/#close-modal

---------- Post added at 17:38 ---------- Previous post was at 17:37 ----------


[EXTRACT]
Omdia has seen two key trends that shaped cross-platform viewing time in 2022: a decline in linear viewing and the ascendance of nonlinear platforms such as online long form and social media video viewing. Despite these overarching themes, the state of play between certain markets remains resolutely different. Traditional linear TV viewing, for example, remains the dominant form of viewing in Australia and across most of Europe, including France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Omdia believes those markets are set to remain that way for several years.

However, in the US, UK, Sweden, and the Netherlands, linear has fallen below the 50% share threshold, with nonlinear viewing now the dominant viewing method.

Re: The future of television
 

It is indeed.

The question is why would the last decade - where streaming and on demand made a modest gain of around 15% - be any different from the next decade?

“The streamers” are getting more expensive, and investing less in content, today than they did last year and the year before as shareholders demand returns. There is no longer a commitment to throw money into a bottomless pit.

The advert laden, higher cost, proposition of 2025 will be less appealing than that of 2020. New markets tend to plateau over time. That time very well could be now for “the streamers”.

It will be somewhat ironic as your posts pivot to the realisation that if your prediction is to have any potential at all it’ll be on the coat tails of Sky’s success. Despite many previous predictions of the “deep pockets” streamers blowing them out the water.

Re: The future of television
 

But "non-linear" includes Catch-up, Recorded, & Video-sharing platforms - it’s not just streaming, which as previously evidenced, has plateaued…

Re: The future of television
 

I'm guessing that the higher traditional linear viewing in some Europe countries could lead those countries to advocate for DTT frequencies not being switched off anytime soon.

Re: The future of television
 

You wish!

Re: The future of television
 

They probably will.

Contrary to often stated opinion there’s no clear alternative use case for the frequencies. If we were in the halcyon days of spectrum auctions raising £22bn (in 1999, £40bn in real terms) for the Treasury and mobile network operators (MNOs) foaming at the mouth then it’d be a slam dunk closure. It’d have been announced years ago giving end users ample time to prepare.

In reality MNOs see the lower end of the spectrum as cheap ways for them to avoid investment in rural areas by punting out 5G lite services offering barely above 4G speeds. European Governments will rightly be sceptical whether this is a worthwhile use of a limited resource.

Re: The future of television
 

Not really. It's not about how one person consumes content but the supply and demand forces at play. I don't
believe the point I made had been made before in the thread.

I don't think your reply repudiates my point.

(For what it's worth, I consume most of my content by streaming.)

Re: The future of television
 

I wouldn’t worry too much, that’s a fairly standard OB reply whenever someone introduces a new dimension to the discussion. He’ll be back with a counter argument after a while, except the counter argument will turn out to be just ‘you wish’ somehow expanded to several paragraphs. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Thanks for the clarification. This definitely seems more like a circular thread than a linear one. ;)

For what it's worth, I thought a good evolution of TV from linear to streaming came with YouView. It was a smooth transition rather than the more sudden jump from a TV schedule to a variety of streaming apps.

Missed a TV programme? Just scroll back to when it started and watch it. If the rights holder or channel does not provide it on-demand or you prefer to, then you can pre-record it and still watch it from the EPG. Prefer to watch through the apps directly or go straight to your recordings? You can do both of those too.

Re: The future of television
 

Because the broadcasters are moving to IPTV.

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------

It's not a valid argument, jfman. We are in the hands of the broadcasters.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

Linear may work for you, but if the option is no longer there, what then?

Well, you use the alternative provided, of course.

Why is this concept so difficult for you all to grasp?

Re: The future of television
 

The most popular broadcasters in this country have been offering their programming on demand and in apps for the entire decade 2015-2024.

In addition to content available on cable operators prior to these dates 4oD launched in 2006, BBC iPlayer in 2007, and Sky Anytime launched in 2012 on that platform.

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

Why are our points so difficult for you to grasp. Basic economics should tell you that companies step in to fill the void if there’s revenue in it. Which there self evidently is.

Television is ironically one of the few markets out there where the collective of consumers genuinely has power to influence the market by watching or paying for something else. Or reading a book instead. This isn’t one of those fake ones Thatcher invented to siphon off the assets of this great nation into her cronies pockets.

Re: The future of television
 

Don't think they've taken your advice Maggie ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Perhaps because it doesn’t need grasping, because it’s not happening.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept of linear TV schedules having a utility that will keep it in use for the foreseeable future?

Re: The future of television
 

Why is it hard to grasp "the option" isnt going away anytime soon ?

Re: The future of television
 

jfman? :D

If DTT capacity is still there due to other countries' lower streaming adoption rates, the higher the likelihood of it remaining in the UK for longer too.

---------- Post added at 07:55 ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 ----------

Isn't that exactly the purpose of a forum? :D:D:D

Re: The future of television
 

Sorry - mistaken identity!

---------- Post added at 08:43 ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 ----------

...And I'm accused of putting forward a binary argument! You csnnot 'know' that 'linear' TV in its present form will survive and I have put forward many links that indicate otherwise. However, you and others refuse to even contemplate this and cannot even accept that the likelihood is that our programmes will be delivered only via IPTV in the future.

Very well, we'll soon see, won't we?

---------- Post added at 08:43 ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 ----------

Link?

Re: The future of television
 

Why yes, we will. In about 4 months by your original prediction.

Re: The future of television
 

Imagine a government project that slid ten years (well, we probably don’t have to imagine :D) what would your confidence level be in it not ending up 15, or 20. If it even happened at all.

Re: The future of television
 

Well, as has been discussed previously in this thread, OFCOM believe there are three options, only one of which is switching of DTT altogether.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-an...a%20disability.

It would be a brave Government/company that told 35% of the population that they could not continue watching TV in the manner they were accustomed to…

Re: The future of television
 

But but but Ofcom refused to allow Project Kangaroo therefore they’re wrong about everything.

Re: The future of television
 

That related to the broadband situation, which you well know, and was explained at the time. The linear channels prediction always related to '20 years' time', as explained in the original post.

You must be desperate to keep repeating what you know I never meant in the context you've stated it.

---------- Post added at 07:40 ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 ----------

You are even more desperate than Chris!

---------- Post added at 07:45 ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 ----------

I don't disagree with Ofcom's assessment. Yes, these are the options. But I believe that what will actually happen is what I set out in 2015.

---------- Post added at 07:45 ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 ----------

Are you feeling OK, Chris?

Re: The future of television
 

Set out in 2015, delayed by a decade. We are literally no closer to your vision today than we were then by that metric. Despite 10 years of “progress”.

Re: The future of television
 

This is where I think you're in danger of becoming your own worst enemy, Old Boy, by criticising Chris and not addressing the point he's making.

Re: The future of television
 

Oh, come off it! The streamers are proliferating everywhere and the pace of change is increasing all the time.

Yes, if it pleases you, you can ignore the fact that there’s no agreement to continue broadcasting from transmitters after 2024 while ignoring all the preparations the broadcasters are making for a digital future; you can ignore the fact that Sky is planning to cease the availability of its Sky Q boxes soon and has no transponder space booked after 2024; you can ignore the fact that the audience grouping loved by advertisers is watching less and less conventional TV Channels; that those TV channels are encouraging people to go online rather than scheduled TV by making more of their originals available online before they appear on the main channels…….

And you can just carry on with your ‘la la la’ antics and complain that anyone who believes as you do must be off their rockers.

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

Chris is perpetuating the lie that I said linear channels would be gone by 2025. I said 2035, and both you and he know that.

2025 was the date I envisaged that most properties would be connected to broadband, although I was basing that on the government’s plans at the time.

Re: The future of television
 

Actually, most *are* already connected ....

Re: The future of television
 

Chris's comment that I quoted was about Ofcom not predictions, but in fairness, I've seen that you do address it elsewhere.

Most premises were connected to broadband back in 2015 so not too controversial to predict this would continue to be the case in 2025. ;)
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/...e.pdf?v=334808

Re: The future of television
 

Except that you obviously weren’t. Here’s that part of the thread:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1724770871

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...4#post35757394

I posted that a former president of HBO believed there was a long-term future for linear broadcast because it creates ‘water-cooler moments’ that you can only derive from a shared viewing experience. (You can’t get that from streaming, by design.)

You clearly understood what he had said, then dismissed it, and predicted things would look ‘so different’ by 2025.

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in your post that anyone could possibly understand to mean you were making some comment about availability of broadband. Blind Freddie can see you were trying to contradict Callender’s prediction that linear broadcast would be resilient.

Face it … 10 years on (your metric, not his), you have been proven categorically wrong. Every significant linear broadcaster still exists, a ton of IP-based linear-scheduled FAST channels nobody even predicted have come into being, and there are more streamers available in the UK market which plenty, but by no means all, households subscribe to in addition to their habitual use of linear broadcast schedules.

Incidentally, Colin Callender is still working in TV production at the highest levels and his list of credits is as long as your arm. I’d still listen to his predictions of the future of his industry over yours, any day of the week.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0130456/

Re: The future of television
 

Exactly, so I was right about that.

---------- Post added at 16:39 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------

Not a decent connection, and if you recall, this was cited as a reason why terrestrial and satellite broadcasts would continue.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------

But you keep on reciting that same erroneous argument. You only have to look back to earlier posts of mine to see that, and also, shortly after the posts you now quote, I corrected the misapprehension you and some others were under. That was way back in 2015, and you are still prattling on with these falsehoods.

The 2025 date related to broadband rollout, which would then make switching off channels possible - that’s the reason I mentioned 2025. In other words, the landscape would look entirely different and the main barrier to a terrestrial and satellite channel switch off would be removed. You know that, and it’s on the record, so why are you deliberately confusing people and wasting their time with this nonsense?

As for that ‘water cooler moment’ you were harking on about, I think some are concentrating on the wrong issues. I know there are some advantages of retaining the channels, but if the broadcasters decide to ditch the channels regardless, that argument goes out of the window. In any case, the streamers could surely do the same - release one episode per week until the whole series of a new original appears. Some of you are just putting made up problems in the way, but heaven only knows to what end.

I am sure that Colin Callander is an excellent professional person, and that you would prefer to listen to his views, but quite honestly, I’m not preventing you from doing that. I’ve told you what I think and we will see who is right with the fullness of time.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

With apologies for a date inaccuracy in my response to jf man, which I have corrected in bold.

Re: The future of television
 

LOL, you dont get any brownie points for that - it was not exactly hard to predict, and as noted, a national plan.

Re: The future of television
 

They could do this dropping an episode a week of one programme at 8pm on a Monday, another at 9pm, another at 10pm... And so on in sequence.

Realising they have some spare airtime they could run trailers, or sell adverts. They could even break up the programme itself - giving the advantage of the captive viewer to sell to advertisers.

Once they've done this for say, um, 168 hours a week they could publish the sequence in which programming can be viewed first run or, if required, repeat showings to pad it out a bit. They could even explore innovative ways to supply content advertising funded, perhaps to non-subscribers, if only such a transmission system existed that people could receive such programming by default. Broadcast, if you like, into their living rooms in an accessible form. Like you just switched on your TV and it's there.

Re: The future of television
 

Streamers (aside from Netflix) often do release one episode per week.
The difference is that once released, you can watch it whenever you want, without having to record it.

Re: The future of television
 

If we are going as low as superfast (using the greater than 30 megabits definition) in 2014 the UK had 85-90% coverage. More than enough to stream high definition television at that time and develop a market of over 20 million households.

The notion that there is some kind of “game changer” in terms of progress in content delivery that’s more likely to fall in the next decade than the last one is flawed.

Re: The future of television
 

You’re right, but I had a fair number of detractors back then.

I’m not asking for any brownie points, anyhow. I’m just saying what I think. Either I’m right or wrong - no big deal.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

Haha, you never give up, do you? This is a real Monty Python experience.

Maybe the streamers will also issue subscribers with a free fake portable aerial to put on their TV sets, just to make people of a nervous disposition feel safe….

Maybe they could also reduce picture quality during very hot weather and when it rains heavily so you can kid yourself nothing’s changed.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

H’mmm. Maybe you should revisit what was being said at the time.

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

It’s not flawed when you consider that there were still a lot of households who received either no or inadequate broadband speeds. This was the big reason quoted on here as why the channels would never be closed down. Lack of electricity to support streaming was also quoted! :D

Re: The future of television
 

The straw man army has new recruits.

As ever you either missed, potentially intentionally, the point being made. That which you are unable or unwilling to answer.

Why will the next decade be different from the last? The tech is in place to support the streaming market for the vast, vast, majority of UK households. The economics are now less favourable - they’re no longer minor add ons, often supplementing the existing pay-tv services among those households who do subscribe. They’re becoming higher cost at a time they’re investing ever decreasing amounts in content.

The biggest issue for your vision is that rational consumers in the marketplace continue to watch live, linear television. Whether they’ve had access to on demand content and hard drive recorders for twenty years. They still watch.

You come up with ludicrous ways for “the streamers” to accommodate the viewing habits of rational viewers (dropping programme once a week) for example that contradicts the viewing habits of the average streaming viewer (to binge). Neither can a streamer command when someone is likely to first watch in the same manner as a linear broadcaster who dictates the time. Streaming still needs the “content aggregator” and someone else to develop the user interface that none of them rationally would want to sign up to.

Re: The future of television
 

And blah, blah, blah. :zzz:

Re: The future of television
 

You say that OB, but you never address the points made to you. Instead opting for some perverse argument nobody made. For example these:

The difference here is that no rational person would watch an image with poor picture quality. You view linear television, and anyone that watches it, with the same disdain despite the fact that the ratings objectively show that it remains an extremely popular way for rational consumers in the marketplace to watch television, and rational advertisers in the marketplace to reach eyeballs.

Re: The future of television
 

It's a lot cheaper to broadcast to each viewer via DTT than streaming.

The only way that DTT will be switched off (partially or fully) is if too few people use it to make it viable to continue or if the Government decide they want the spectrum to be used for something else.

Re: The future of television
 

As I said before, the decision will be made by the broadcasters unless the government intervenes.

I really can’t see broadcasters not wanting to take advantage of simply uploading streams than going to the bother of scheduling.

Re: The future of television
 

And as the rest of us said before, you’re wrong.

Public Service Broadcasters distribute where government tells them because it’s part of the licensing terms (or charter terms in the BBC’s case). They don’t get to decide to end DTT broadcast and wait for government to intervene. They must continue to broadcast via DTT unless and until a change in regulation permits them not to.

Re: The future of television
 

That's why Ofcom has proposed three options to be investigated

Re: The future of television
 

ButbutbutOfcomProjectKangaroo

Re: The future of television
 

This will be addressed in the consultation period, so the broadcasters will have their say, and it’s as plain as day what they are advocating.

Anyhow, that’s beside the point, I have been making it very clear that this will only happen if the government decides not to intervene.

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:23 ----------

Thank you.

Re: The future of television
 

You have been making it very clear that you still don’t understand the government’s role in setting the PSB licensing regime.

Re: The future of television
 

Not correct, but in any case I would point out the the government makes laws and it can also change them, so it’s a moot point.

Once again I’m just telling you how I see it. I fully understand that you disagree.

Re: The future of television
 

https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/majority-w...cted-from-axe/

[EXTRACTS]

The Digital Poverty Alliance (DPA) – a UK-based charity dedicated to addressing the digital divide and combating digital exclusion across vulnerable communities – is calling on the government to give long-term protection to the UK’s free-to-air terrestrial TV service, as new research finds strong support (73%) for retaining it and low awareness that its future is under threat.

Ministers are currently examining the future of TV distribution ahead of a decision on whether to continue Freeview.

Findings include:

90% value terrestrial TV for ensuring people who cannot afford expensive monthly bills have universal access to information and entertainment
75% agree that terrestrial TV helps reduce loneliness
73% believe that terrestrial TV should be protected well beyond 2035
85% say that terrestrial TV is important to help understand history and traditions
70% of the public feel reassured knowing that terrestrial TV is there as a backup
More than 2/3 of people (69% are unaware that terrestrial TV is under threat



In 2024, free-to-air broadcasters and regulator Ofcom warned of a tipping point in terms of the viability of terrestrial TV broadcasts. The BBC highlighted the increasing cost of terrestrial TV per user. It also put a question mark over whether or not it could justify the ongoing expenditure.

Commercial multiplex operators are already struggling to fill capacity as channels switch to streaming instead. The BBC has so far refused to commit to maintaining terrestrial TV services. The broadcast licence for one of its digital terrestrial TV multiplexes expires next year.

What the public say they want and what they’ll get may be two different things.

It seems to me that the operators want to move on to IP based systems, which means that streaming is bound to take over. The question is, by when? If the operators get their way, it’ll be sometime between 2030 and 2035, and only government intervention will change that. But is the government prepared to meet the costs of retaining terrestrial in these cash-strapped times?

Then, of course, there is the added pressure from the industry to use the bandwidth currently used for TV to provide more 5G services.

My own view (others are free to disagree) is that the government should accept the way the industry is going, but add a requirement that there must be a means by which non-tech savvy pensioners can access easily those services they actually want. If the industry is charged with that requirement, they would be able to act collectively to ensure the changes the government requires are realised. It shouldn’t be too big an ask.

The other barrier is broadband services, so perhaps an increase in the state pension for the poorest should be implemented to the value of a basic broadband service. Additionally, any remaining ‘not spots’ should be plugged to ensure that everyone can use the service.

Re: The future of television
 

The whole rationale for Government is to protect against the whims of private enterprise that won’t do things in the public interest.

People on state pension aren’t considered poor, those on pension credit (an income based benefit) are. Plenty of people below pension age that would need additional income to fund this idea. At a time the government want to reduce the benefits bill it seems counterintuitive.

The regulated market works adequately well.

Re: The future of television
 

To be honest, jfman, I don’t see how the government can seriously agree to spend scarce resources on a preferred method of broadcasting that the content providers don’t want.

If channels are abandoned in favour of streaming, and at a time that the BBC complain they are so cash strapped that they have to withdraw services, what will be left to broadcast terrestrially?

To date, I haven’t heard a reasoned argument against that view, apart from the usual appeal to the emotions that ‘people want the choice’.

I don’t think the option will be available, and there won’t be a referendum!

Re: The future of television
 

What’s the cost to Government of mandating that public service broadcasters keep using terrestrial? In the absence of a lucrative alternative use the answer is near zero.

There are 7.8 million people on “low income” benefits. Usually pensioners on low incomes (pension credit) or the state subsidising poverty wages for unscrupulous employers (universal credit). Do you propose all of them get “free broadband” just to satisfy your own narrow vision?

People want the choice is the very rallying cry of capitalism. People paying to watch, or paying to advertise to viewers, is the very definition of a successful market. There’s no need for state or regulatory intervention that immediately the state has to mitigate the harm from in the manner you propose.

It’s completely absurd.

There may indeed be no referendum but it’s easy pickings for an opposition to campaign on a near zero cost popular policy. Starmer’s not going to do something as unpopular as indicated above for no tangible benefit to anyone.

Re: The future of television
 

You’ve heard plenty of reasoned arguments, repeatedly, over many years. They just don’t align with your opinion, so you dismiss them and tell yourself that dismissing an argument is somehow the same as disproving it.

Also LOL at you posting an article that proves terrestrial TV is a highly valued commodity and then somehow concluding the government must inevitably decide to pi$$ everyone off by authorising its switch-off.

And further LOL at whoever wrote that piece observing the BBC has failed to ‘commit’ to continued support of terrestrial broadcast, as if that means it might unilaterally pull the plug, when in fact it is not up to the BBC to decide that - it is part of its charter conditions, which are set by parliament, not by the BBC.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m not sure where you are coming from - it’s like you are living on a different planet.

As the article says:

‘In 2024, free-to-air broadcasters and regulator Ofcom warned of a tipping point in terms of the viability of terrestrial TV broadcasts. The BBC highlighted the increasing cost of terrestrial TV per user. It also put a question mark over whether or not it could justify the ongoing expenditure.’

The article references the public’s preference to continue to broadcast terrestrially, but you ignore completely the financial issues associated with continuing to use transmitters for this purpose.

It does not cost peanuts to broadcast this way as jfman supposes, and the move to IP will lead to broadcasters wanting to disseminate their content through streaming only, which may or may not include streaming channels to replace existing ones. Streaming will finish off the ability for people to record shows, which is what broadcasters and content providers want, and advertisers want to prevent people from skipping over advertisements.

This may seem to you to be a controversial subject, and there are still some on here who cannot even envisage this, but it doesn’t make what I have said incorrect. The advantages of broadcasting via IP is too great to be resisted.

Re: The future of television
 

That’s because it’s a sleight-of-hand.

There is no cost per user on terrestrial TV. It is a flat cost, regardless of how many people receive the broadcast.

Dividing it up amongst those who actually tune in, in order to create an entirely notional amount spent per user, is pointless because there are so many other factors that are within the broadcasters’ control if they want to have lower costs per user - principally, by making programmes more users want to watch.

The PSBs, the BBC most of all, have the top EPG slots and are in every home, on every platform. If they’re losing viewers they shouldn’t be helped to vanish up their own arsehoes by agreeing to switch off the distribution method your own link proves is the one viewers still want.

Wrong.

Mature technology - check.
Reaches every customer - check (pretty much).
Minimal barrier to entry for consumer (in terms of cost of receiver, simplicity of technology) - check.

The cost to reach every customer - because it does reach every customer, whether or not they actually watch is another matter - is tiny.

That wet, squishing noise is the sound of you dragging the goalposts across a particularly soggy Sunday league football pitch and hoping everyone’s too tired or drunk to notice.

The principal protagonist here, according to the article you linked to, is the BBC, which is the backbone of UK public service broadcasting and, famously, does not run adverts. In fact it even employs people to blur out the trademen’s business names on DIY SOS, such is its commitment to not advertising, even on the occasions it would be rather nicer if they did.

The apparent cost to stream is so low because nobody has yet fully addressed the elephant in that room, which is that consumers are paying network operators for ‘unlimited’ internet access based on certain assumptions about average monthly data usage. I don’t know if you’re aware quite how much of a difference it makes to data usage when a household goes IP only - in the 50 days since our router was last power cycled we’ve downloaded just shy of 3 terabytes. We’re in a new-build and haven’t got round to putting an aerial up, so all our consumption is over IP. That’s what a single family doing *everything* online looks like. Push close to 2 terabytes per month on every household and the ISPs are going to start squealing, loudly, and suddenly the entire business model for the delivery of home broadband has to change. Whatever the streamers are currently paying for peering, content delivery networks and the like, doesn’t come close to covering the actual cost.

This is exactly what I meant when I said you think dismissing something when it doesn’t align with you opinion is not the same thing as successfully arguing against it. You might as well have just stuck your fingers in your ears and gone ‘lalala’.

Re: The future of television
 

It’s not just my opinion. Perhaps you should read this.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/...t.pdf?v=344045

Re: The future of television
 

What, you mean the report where Ofcom states it is making an ‘early’ assessment of the market (i.e. not making conclusions or asking for certain actions), and proposes that 2 of the 3 possible ways forward include keeping terrestrial broadcast? That one?

Yes. In fact, I read it long before the last time it came up in this thread, which must have been some time ago now because the document is almost a year old.

Re: The future of television
 

So you read:

‘ …There is no way around the fact that the proliferation of TV distribution methods ….will put more and more pressure onto PSBs…..The tipping point will come for DSat and eventually DTT at which the costs of distribution outweigh the benefits.’

Still. as usual, you think you know better. Not much I can do about that.

Re: The future of television
 

Do you ever read what you post ? ** :rofl:


** Pot, Kettle, Black ....

Re: The future of television
 

I did. But, that being the part where they merely identify the problem, I kept reading in order to discover what their possible solutions are. So I also read:

And

And also

… which is the only one of the three options Ofcom has put forward for early discussion that actually involved ditching DTT. The other two emphatically do not. The *first* one in the list even advocates for investment to make it resilient and more efficient. Yet somehow no matter what you read, and even when what you post says the opposite of what you think it does, you stick to the idea that you must be right. Meanwhile, we draw ever nearer to your switch of prediction date. Tick tock.

Based on all the above, apparently I do, and you’re right (for once), no there’s not.

Re: The future of television
 

I read all of that. I also read:

‘A significant number of broadcasters voiced concerns in their evidence that maintaining the existing DTT infrastructure is unlikely to be commercially attractive after the 2030s.’

Ofcom may have some sticking plaster solutions, but their mindset is different to what the TV industry actually wants and is prepared to pay for. Money is tight, for TV channels, for the government and for taxpayers. Something has to give.

Ofcom is desperately trying to find reasons for propping up DTT, but it will ultimately fail, in my opinion. Another 10 years and the DTT audience that advertisers wish to attract will have migrated to IP. What’s left? Ah yes, the BBC! Well they are into digital first as well, and they don’t seem to be hanging around, do they?

Well, let the good people of this forum judge for themselves. I’m beginning to think some of you have shares in DTT!

Re: The future of television
 

Other DTT broadcasting technologies are available…

https://www.tvbeurope.com/media-deli...-ready-by-2027

https://kitplus.com/news/major-europ...-in-2027/12574

https://www.csimagazine.com/csi/5G-B...-in-Europe.php

Re: The future of television
 

I know, Hugh, but this is the U.K. and we are not part of the EU either. I have not seen any sign of enthusiasm for this here in Britain. Have you?

Re: The future of television
 

I’ve not seen any enthusiasm for shutting down DTT either but that doesn’t stop you from going on about it.

Are ITV, Channel 4 and 5 obliged to have channels other than their main channel on DTT? If they aren’t, why do they?

Re: The future of television
 

Nothing in any of those articles refers to the EU, only Europe - I believe we’re still in Europe…

5BSTF has, as one of its partners, Cordiant Capital (UK).

Re: The future of television
 

Don’t be daft. Streaming is a recent phenomenon, and the transition has begun.

Re: The future of television
 

BBC iPlayer’s private Beta release was 20 years ago this October. It has been universally available for 17 years.

The world’s first high definition scheduled TV service (also the BBC), having launched initially in 1936, didn’t really get going, permanently, until 1946. In other words, at the rate public television services have historically launched and developed, there is nothing ‘recent’ about streaming TV, except in strictly relative terms. 20 years is a long time for any communications technology.