Cable Forum
Page 12 of 13 « First 2891011 12 13
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Other Digital TV Services Discussion (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   The future of television (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709854)

Hugh 21-03-2025 20:14
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193144)
Don’t be daft. Streaming is a recent phenomenon, and the transition has begun.
By recent, do you mean 17 years ago (Hulu) and 18 years ago (Netflix and BBC iPlayer)?

Mr K 21-03-2025 21:17
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36193147)
By recent, do you mean 17 years ago (Hulu) and 18 years ago (Netflix and BBC iPlayer)?
Time is relative Hugh....

I still miss CEEFAX, the original interweb/streaming service.

Hugh 21-03-2025 21:31
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36193153)
Time is relative Hugh....

I still miss CEEFAX, the original interweb/streaming service.
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so"

jfman 21-03-2025 21:42
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193144)
Don’t be daft. Streaming is a recent phenomenon, and the transition has begun.
You are the one telling me the broadcasters all want out. As far as I can tell they can withdraw the majority of their content pretty quickly without regulatory intervention. This begs the question once more why don’t they themselves - rational capitalists - lead the retreat from DTT and push people onto streaming services for all but the required PSB content?

OLD BOY 22-03-2025 00:19
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193160)
You are the one telling me the broadcasters all want out. As far as I can tell they can withdraw the majority of their content pretty quickly without regulatory intervention. This begs the question once more why don’t they themselves - rational capitalists - lead the retreat from DTT and push people onto streaming services for all but the required PSB content?
Well, surely, that’s the argument. When that crucial point is arrived at, they will withdraw. Why would they do that now? The contracts for DTT and satellite have a few years to go yet. The big question is, will they be renewed, and if so, for how long?

You seem to view everything in terms of the present rather than the future.

jfman 22-03-2025 04:20
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193175)
Well, surely, that’s the argument. When that crucial point is arrived at, they will withdraw. Why would they do that now? The contracts for DTT and satellite have a few years to go yet. The big question is, will they be renewed, and if so, for how long?

You seem to view everything in terms of the present rather than the future.
No, OB I simply view things rationally.

These rational capitalists in the marketplace are complaining about costs. If, as you claim, these are so high as to be unviable they could simply exit the marketplace for the majority of their broadcast hours - hardly anyone uses DTT exclusively after all. Internet is universal enough they could still reach the vast majority of consumers.

They will only exit DTT when they can close it down because they know someone else would step in because of the universal coverage it provides and low barrier to entry for its use - as Chris outlined a couple of days ago. It costs peanuts compared to all the other costs for a content provider.

OLD BOY 23-03-2025 17:13
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193178)
No, OB I simply view things rationally.

These rational capitalists in the marketplace are complaining about costs. If, as you claim, these are so high as to be unviable they could simply exit the marketplace for the majority of their broadcast hours - hardly anyone uses DTT exclusively after all. Internet is universal enough they could still reach the vast majority of consumers.

They will only exit DTT when they can close it down because they know someone else would step in because of the universal coverage it provides and low barrier to entry for its use - as Chris outlined a couple of days ago. It costs peanuts compared to all the other costs for a content provider.
Well, yes, they are complaining about costs, which is why the broadcasters are not going to carry on using both methods of transmission. Now that the rollout of broadband is nearing completion, broadcasters will want to cut costs as soon as possible, but will probably wait until existing licences expire.

The average person spent 25% fewer minutes per day watching broadcast TV in 2023 compared to 2018, with projections indicating a further decline.

The fact that both DTT and online platforms have become increasingly expensive for broadcasters is a major factor in looking at likely developments in the years ahead. As DTT viewership diminishes, the cost per viewer escalates, challenging the economic viability of sustaining traditional terrestrial TV, which contrary to what Chris seems to think, is not a pittance. OFCOM’s 2023 report highlights that broadcasters foresee a tipping point where continuing DTT in its current form may no longer be sustainable.

We can all see with our own eyes that major broadcasters are increasingly focusing on internet-based services. For instance, the BBC is contemplating significant structural changes, including potential mergers and a stronger emphasis on digital offerings, to adapt to the evolving media landscape. They have also now developed a ‘digital first’ strategy.

I think the tipping point is likely when existing satellite contracts come to an end. Sky will then be IP only, and this change will impact on DTT due to the further loss of many of those viewers who use satellite but don’t have an aerial. Many of them are likely to transition to on demand viewing, putting further pressure on the viability of running TV channels. This will be a major factor that causes broadcasting via DTT to diminish, and ultimately close.

While it is true that new broadcasters might wish to take advantage of the bigger players leaving the platform, the viewing figures will plummet as the availability of compelling viewing will be absent.

The one thing that might impact on all this is government policy, and there’s a lot of hand wringing taking place at the moment on which way they will go.

RichardCoulter 23-03-2025 17:23
Re: The future of television
 
The traditional methods of broadcasting are actually cheaper than streaming to mass audiences. Therefore, when I asked a BBC technologist why they are going to move over to streaming their content, he said that 'It's pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using'.

This leads me to believe that broadcasters will carry on using the traditional methods for as long as possible, though this will be impacted by having to sign new contracts, which may not be prudent long term.

Re: Government carbon footprint worries. In a sense, maybe it would be better to ban streaming for those able to broadcast via another methods and continue as we are??

Chris 23-03-2025 17:39
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193255)
The fact that both DTT and online platforms have become increasingly expensive for broadcasters is a major factor in looking at likely developments in the years ahead.. As DTT viewership diminishes, the cost per viewer escalates, challenging the economic viability of sustaining traditional terrestrial TV, which contrary to what Chris seems to think, is not a pittance. OFCOM’s 2023 report highlights that broadcasters foresee a tipping point where continuing DTT in its current form may no longer be sustainable.
How to argue like an Old Boy:

1. Read an Ofcom report. Get excited at Ofcom’s description of ‘The Problem’.
2. Read right below Ofcom’s description of the problem, three possible solutions, most of which don’t involve switching off DTT.
3. Ignore Ofcom’s potential solutions because they don’t agree with you.
4. Endlessly post descriptions of the problem as if you’re the only person who knows what it is, and then keep pushing your ideas as if you’re the only person who who’s thought it through.

Paul 23-03-2025 17:48
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193255)
Now that the rollout of broadband is nearing completion
Nearing completion ? not really.

Openreach have plans to make fttp available to 80% of UK premises by the end of 2026, and (almost) the rest by the 2030.

Even then, with fttp, you can still get issues watching TV over BB, I have it and the sky-go streams can stutter or freeze for a few seconds.

OLD BOY 23-03-2025 18:13
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36193260)
Nearing completion ? not really.

Openreach have plans to make fttp available to 80% of UK premises by the end of 2026, and (almost) the rest by the 2030.

Even then, with fttp, you can still get issues watching TV over BB, I have it and the sky-go streams can stutter or freeze for a few seconds.
May I remind you that 2030 is a mere five years away, so I stand by my comment that broadband rollout is nearing completion.

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193259)
How to argue like an Old Boy:

1. Read an Ofcom report. Get excited at Ofcom’s description of ‘The Problem’.
2. Read right below Ofcom’s description of the problem, three possible solutions, most of which don’t involve switching off DTT.
3. Ignore Ofcom’s potential solutions because they don’t agree with you.
4. Endlessly post descriptions of the problem as if you’re the only person who knows what it is, and then keep pushing your ideas as if you’re the only person who who’s thought it through.
I am well aware of Ofcom’s reference to ‘possible solutions’. They’ve been wrong before. Remember their rubbishing of Project Kangaroo?

I’m concentrating on what the broadcasting industry is doing and the fact the continuing to run two systems is unnecessarily costly for them.

Your constant demeaning of things people write which you don’t agree with does not enhance your reputation, Chris. You have failed to address the points I have made in that post.This was a discussion forum last time I looked, but it seems that anyone who disagrees with your perspective is an idiot according to you.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36193257)
The traditional methods of broadcasting are actually cheaper than streaming to mass audiences.

Therefore, when I asked a BBC technologist why they are going to move over to streaming their content, he said that 'It's pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using'.

This leads me to believe that broadcasters will carry on using the traditional methods for as long as possible, though this will be impacted by having to sign new contracts, which may not be prudent long term.

Re: Government carbon footprint worries. In a sense, maybe it would be better to ban streaming for those able to broadcast via another methods and continue as we are??
The conclusion you came to (highlighted in bold) does not really add up, Richard. You asked ‘why were they going to move over to streaming their content’, to which they replied ‘it’s pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using.’

So given that they are moving to streaming, how does that fit with the rest of the statement, which indicates that they don’t envisage people sticking with DTT in sufficient numbers, and your conclusion that this means they will carry on with traditional methods for as long as possible?

jfman 23-03-2025 18:13
Re: The future of television
 
Which brings us (once again) to the fact that the advertising revenue from reaching the eyeballs on DTT outweighs the costs of broadcasting on it. Because to a rights holder the additional cost of the DTT platform is peanuts by comparison for the multi-billion point television industry.

Rational capitalists don’t voluntarily cannibalise their revenue streams and hand advantages to their competitors. Hence everyone keeps a far higher volume of content, by hour of broadcast, on DTT above the contractual minimum for PSBs.

OLD BOY 23-03-2025 18:16
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193265)
Which brings us (once again) to the fact that the advertising revenue from reaching the eyeballs on DTT outweighs the costs of broadcasting on it. Because to a rights holder the additional cost of the DTT platform is peanuts by comparison for the multi-billion point television industry.

Rational capitalists don’t voluntarily cannibalise their revenue streams and hand advantages to their competitors. Hence everyone keeps a far higher volume of content, by hour of broadcast, on DTT above the contractual minimum for PSBs.
But that ignores the fact that advertising is also carried on IP systems, and that those advertisements are non skippable to boot.

jfman 23-03-2025 18:27
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193266)
But that ignores the fact that advertising is also carried on IP systems, and that those advertisements are non skippable to boot.
Yes, OB.

But the viewers aren’t all on IP based systems for a multitude of reasons, explained many times over. Viewers who actually have mechanisms to use on demand - and have done for twenty years - still watch linear television as broadcast. Including over DTT.

That’s the square that cannot be circled without big bad government intervention making a decision unpopular to the masses.

OLD BOY 23-03-2025 19:22
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193265)
Which brings us (once again) to the fact that the advertising revenue from reaching the eyeballs on DTT outweighs the costs of broadcasting on it. Because to a rights holder the additional cost of the DTT platform is peanuts by comparison for the multi-billion point television industry.

Rational capitalists don’t voluntarily cannibalise their revenue streams and hand advantages to their competitors. Hence everyone keeps a far higher volume of content, by hour of broadcast, on DTT above the contractual minimum for PSBs.
The TV industry disagrees with you, jfman. Do you actually know the total cost of DTT broadcasting?

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193267)
Yes, OB.

But the viewers aren’t all on IP based systems for a multitude of reasons, explained many times over. Viewers who actually have mechanisms to use on demand - and have done for twenty years - still watch linear television as broadcast. Including over DTT.

That’s the square that cannot be circled without big bad government intervention making a decision unpopular to the masses.
Yes, but what will be the situation in five years’ time’? Audience figures are declining.

What you are ignoring is that if IP is the only method of broadcasting in the future, then that is what the population will have to use.

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

In terms of costs, this is what Chat GBT threw up:

Operating a Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) multiplex in the UK involves several cost components:

1. Spectrum Fees:
• National Multiplexes: Each of the six national DTT multiplexes, managed by operators such as the BBC, Digital 3&4, SDN, and Arqiva, incurs an annual spectrum fee of £188,000. 
• Local Multiplexes: The local TV multiplex, operated by Comux UK, also pays an annual spectrum fee, with phased implementation details specified by Ofcom. 

2. Transmission and Maintenance Costs:
• Infrastructure Expenses: These include costs related to transmission equipment, site rentals, maintenance, and energy consumption. While specific figures vary based on the multiplex’s scale and coverage area, these operational expenses are substantial.

3. Licensing and Regulatory Fees:
• Ofcom Licenses: Operators must obtain the necessary licenses from Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator. Licensing fees vary depending on the multiplex’s scope and services offered. 

4. Content Delivery Network (CDN) Costs:
• Data Transmission: Multiplex operators may incur costs associated with delivering content to transmission sites, especially if utilizing third-party CDN services.

5. Administrative and Operational Expenses:
• Staffing and Overheads: Costs related to personnel, administrative operations, and other overheads are integral to multiplex management.

So it seems that precise costs are not easily available, but they are clearly significant otherwise so there would not be a problem in broadcasting on two platforms, but clearly, there is indeed a problem.

jfman 23-03-2025 19:36
Re: The future of television
 
So we have no evidence of the costs merely the speculation that they are “significant”.

1) a figure in the small hundreds of thousands of pounds.
2) the infrastructure already exists - therefore the only relevant costs are maintenance.
3) do Ofcom do specific DTT only licences or are these the same for all broadcast platforms?
4) always enjoy the use of “may”. Presumably like 2 these mechanisms already exist.
5) not known

Until these unknown costs can be demonstrated to be higher than the revenue generated there’s no basis for the claim broadcasters will withdraw. You also ignore that the viewers forced to IP may not seamlessly transfer to watching the same content from the same provider given the plethora of new options that will be available. That’s a risk to the revenue stream that broadcasters on DTT lose prominence in millions of homes, and lose the rationale for any such prominence on IP based platforms.

OLD BOY 23-03-2025 19:43
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193271)
So we have no evidence of the costs merely the speculation that they are “significant”.

1) a figure in the small hundreds of thousands of pounds.
2) the infrastructure already exists - therefore the only relevant costs are maintenance.
3) do Ofcom do specific DTT only licences or are these the same for all broadcast platforms?
4) always enjoy the use of “may”. Presumably like 2 these mechanisms already exist.
5) not known

Until these unknown costs can be demonstrated to be higher than the revenue generated there’s no basis for the claim broadcasters will withdraw. You also ignore that the viewers forced to IP may not seamlessly transfer to watching the same content from the same provider given the plethora of new options that will be available. That’s a risk to the revenue stream that broadcasters on DTT lose prominence in millions of homes, and lose the rationale for any such prominence on IP based platforms.
The broadcasters themselves don’t see it that way. And it is the broadcasters who are talking about the tipping point and the fact that running two systems side by side is uneconomic.

Paul 23-03-2025 20:03
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193262)
May I remind you that 2030 is a mere five years away, so I stand by my comment that broadband rollout is nearing completion.
You can stand by it all you want, its still wrong (as usual). Five years is not "nearing completion". :sleep:

jfman 23-03-2025 20:32
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193272)
The broadcasters themselves don’t see it that way. And it is the broadcasters who are talking about the tipping point and the fact that running two systems side by side is uneconomic.
They do see it that way, which is why they want to tie the system closing to them exiting it. They also want handed prominent slots on online platforms.

If the system is still up someone else would step in. Channel 5 would be falling over themselves for ITV1s slot, ITV1 for BBC 1s etc.

Hugh 23-03-2025 20:39
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
OB

In terms of costs, this is what Chat GBT threw up:
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/a...te-study-says/

Quote:
AI search engines cite incorrect news sources at an alarming 60% rate, study says

Citation error rates varied notably among the tested platforms. Perplexity provided incorrect information in 37 percent of the queries tested, whereas ChatGPT Search incorrectly identified 67 percent (134 out of 200) of articles queried. Grok 3 demonstrated the highest error rate, at 94 percent. In total, researchers ran 1,600 queries across the eight different generative search tools.

The study highlighted a common trend among these AI models: rather than declining to respond when they lacked reliable information, the models frequently provided plausible-sounding but incorrect or speculative answers—known technically as confabulations. The researchers emphasized that this behavior was consistent across all tested models, not limited to just one tool.

Chris 23-03-2025 21:03
Re: The future of television
 
Wait, hang on …

Quote:
rather than declining to respond when they lacked reliable information, the models frequently provided plausible-sounding but incorrect or speculative answers—known technically as confabulations.
Old Boy is an AI :Yikes:

RichardCoulter 23-03-2025 21:19
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193262)
May I remind you that 2030 is a mere five years away, so I stand by my comment that broadband rollout is nearing completion.

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------



I am well aware of Ofcom’s reference to ‘possible solutions’. They’ve been wrong before. Remember their rubbishing of Project Kangaroo?

I’m concentrating on what the broadcasting industry is doing and the fact the continuing to run two systems is unnecessarily costly for them.

Your constant demeaning of things people write which you don’t agree with does not enhance your reputation, Chris. You have failed to address the points I have made in that post.This was a discussion forum last time I looked, but it seems that anyone who disagrees with your perspective is an idiot according to you.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------



The conclusion you came to (highlighted in bold) does not really add up, Richard. You asked ‘why were they going to move over to streaming their content’, to which they replied ‘it’s pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using.’

So given that they are moving to streaming, how does that fit with the rest of the statement, which indicates that they don’t envisage people sticking with DTT in sufficient numbers, and your conclusion that this means they will carry on with traditional methods for as long as possible?
Until it's no longer cost effective, if possible,the broadcasters will want to continue using the cheapest form of emission to reach a mass audience as opposed to doing it online.

Once enough have moved over to getting their TV online, it means that the BBC will have no choice but to close their legacy system and use the more expensive online solution.

Hugh 23-03-2025 21:41
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193277)
Wait, hang on …



Old Boy is an AI :Yikes:
More of a Nonularity than a Singularity, methinks… :D

OLD BOY 23-03-2025 23:39
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36193273)
You can stand by it all you want, its still wrong (as usual). Five years is not "nearing completion". :sleep:
It is in the context of the length of time the rollout has been continuing.

---------- Post added at 23:39 ---------- Previous post was at 23:36 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36193276)
Maybe so, Hugh, but can you actually dispute these results?

jfman 24-03-2025 08:34
Re: The future of television
 
There aren’t any results of note to dispute, OB.

In the absence of actual figures for much of it and how these costs are spread between all of the broadcasters who share the DTT system, and how much of there costs exclusively apply to broadcasting on DTT (as opposed to being broadcast on satellite, cable or streaming platforms) it’s all very “how long is a piece of string?”.

Hugh 24-03-2025 09:00
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193288)
It is in the context of the length of time the rollout has been continuing.

---------- Post added at 23:39 ---------- Previous post was at 23:36 ----------



Maybe so, Hugh, but can you actually dispute these results?
Can I dispute the results from a AI chatbot built on top of a LLM that has been shown to be inaccurate/make things up nearly two-thirds of the time?

Yes, I can…

Chris 24-03-2025 09:33
Re: The future of television
 
^This little exchange here pretty much sums up the real problem in this discussion.

1andrew1 24-03-2025 10:09
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36193293)
Can I dispute the results from a AI chatbot built on top of a LLM that has been shown to be inaccurate/make things up nearly two-thirds of the time?

Yes, I can…
:D:D:D
You old cynic! What could possibly go wrong with such a set up?

Paul 24-03-2025 17:36
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193288)
It is in the context of the length of time the rollout has been continuing.
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you, just keep living in that made up world of yours.

OLD BOY 24-03-2025 23:42
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193292)
There aren’t any results of note to dispute, OB.

In the absence of actual figures for much of it and how these costs are spread between all of the broadcasters who share the DTT system, and how much of there costs exclusively apply to broadcasting on DTT (as opposed to being broadcast on satellite, cable or streaming platforms) it’s all very “how long is a piece of string?”.
More like another example of deflection, jfman.

---------- Post added at 23:42 ---------- Previous post was at 23:35 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193297)
^This little exchange here pretty much sums up the real problem in this discussion.
Well, all I get from you guys is constant questioning the source of links rather than any attempt to answer the points made. It’s a classic response from people with no answers.

It’s pretty pointless trying to have a discussion with people who just want to belittle, disrupt and troll because they are receiving views that conflict with their own. It’s a shame, because this could be a really good forum if all views were entertained, but there you go.

jfman 25-03-2025 05:18
Re: The future of television
 
Chat GPT isn't a source when it doesn't even provide figures, let alone substantiate them.

Chris 25-03-2025 07:12
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193342)
Well, all I get from you guys is constant questioning the source of links rather than any attempt to answer the points made. It’s a classic response from people with no answers. .
On the contrary, we took Ofcom at face value this week. The problem is that *you* weren’t interested in Ofcom’s list of potential answers. You just keep reciting their summary of the problem as if that somehow proves your point.

Hugh 25-03-2025 09:01
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193342)
More like another example of deflection, jfman.

---------- Post added at 23:42 ---------- Previous post was at 23:35 ----------



Well, all I get from you guys is constant questioning the source of links rather than any attempt to answer the points made. It’s a classic response from people with no answers.

It’s pretty pointless trying to have a discussion with people who just want to belittle, disrupt and troll because they are receiving views that conflict with their own. It’s a shame, because this could be a really good forum if all views were entertained, but there you go.
I ran that statement through ChatGPT, and it’s reply* was

Quote:
Sounds like someone is very unhappy when people don’t agree with him, and doesn’t understand that the whole point of forums like this are to encourage reasoned debate, and whilst all views should be entertained, those views can be challenged by others if they are believed not to be based on a wide range of available evidence - reviewing all of the posts by this person through my LLM, I have high confidence these were posted by one of my very early development models, OldBoyGPT…
*not really :D

OLD BOY 25-03-2025 16:05
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193345)
Chat GPT isn't a source when it doesn't even provide figures, let alone substantiate them.
You still haven’t come up with any facts to dispute that information. You use the same tactic with all the links posted that you don’t like unless the message is in line with your own argument - again, without engaging on the points made.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:03 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193349)
On the contrary, we took Ofcom at face value this week. The problem is that *you* weren’t interested in Ofcom’s list of potential answers. You just keep reciting their summary of the problem as if that somehow proves your point.
I did consider Ofcom’s responses, but they did not appear to me to be relevant to what the TV industry wants.

You will be saying the same a day before DTT switch-off, just to be annoying.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36193358)
I ran that statement through ChatGPT, and it’s reply* was



*not really :D
Except there is no reasoned debate on here, that was my point.

jfman 25-03-2025 16:25
Re: The future of television
 
Nobody needs a fact to dispute that costs are “significant” since the term is entirely subjective. Relative to what?

You only need to open your eyes to see that rational capitalists use DTT to a greater extent than they are mandated to. They could simply not renew their licences - and I’d welcome that if they wanted to come 2035. So why the urge to crash the system too? If someone else wanted to use it, that’s the free market, inniit?

That’s like your local Tesco closing down and torching it so Asda can’t use it.

1andrew1 25-03-2025 16:44
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193373)
I did consider Ofcom’s responses, but they did not appear to me to be relevant to what the TV industry wants.
You do know that the line "we've had enough of experts" was there to win over the hard of thinking. :D

It's not anyone's strategy and Ofcom' solutions can't be discarded because they don't fit your philosophy.

Paul 25-03-2025 18:42
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193373)
Except there is no reasoned debate on here, that was my point.
Exactly - there is your view, and everyone else is wrong if they dont share it ... :dunce:

jfman 04-04-2025 21:06
Re: The future of television
 
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...et-access.html

Ofcom find 5% of the UK population don’t have internet at home. Whole countries have television markets smaller than this.

OLD BOY 05-04-2025 18:07
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193949)
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...et-access.html

Ofcom find 5% of the UK population don’t have internet at home. Whole countries have television markets smaller than this.
So what? Public broadcasters have failed to support retaining a terrestrial TV service, and other commercial broadcasters such as Sky will not waste time with it either.

Some of the much smaller channels may wish to continue broadcasting, but they won’t capture much interest, and the cost of the infrastructure will mean the current system will be rendered unviable.

As I have said repeatedly, in the end, if the TV industry decides to go IPTV only, then IPTV it will be. Internet refuseniks will then have to reassess their view on this.

jfman 05-04-2025 18:16
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194001)
So what? Public broadcasters have failed to support retaining a terrestrial TV service, and other commercial broadcasters such as Sky will not waste time with it either.
Have they? According to every list I see there’s plenty of channels on DTT and satellite on a discretionary basis that could be withdrawn tomorrow if rational capitalists in the marketplace chose to do so.

I have every confidence rational capitalists will continue to do so far beyond 2035.

Quote:
Some of the much smaller channels may wish to continue broadcasting, but they won’t capture much interest, and the cost of the infrastructure will mean the current system will be rendered unviable.

As I have said repeatedly, in the end, if the TV industry decides to go IPTV only, then IPTV it will be. Internet refuseniks will then have to reassess their view on this.
Starmer’s government is unpopular enough without telling millions of people they need to pony up for internet services they don’t want or need to watch television.

Chris 05-04-2025 19:03
Re: The future of television
 
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194001)
So what? Public broadcasters have failed to support retaining a terrestrial TV service, and other commercial broadcasters such as Sky will not waste time with it either.

Some of the much smaller channels may wish to continue broadcasting, but they won’t capture much interest, and the cost of the infrastructure will mean the current system will be rendered unviable.

As I have said repeatedly, in the end, if the TV industry decides to go IPTV only, then IPTV it will be. Internet refuseniks will then have to reassess their view on this.
Not for the first time, you sound like one of those futurology picture books you used to be able to buy from the Puffin Book Club at school.

The sort that breezily assured us we’d have an android maid bustling round every respectable home by now.

I had a copy of this one, published in 1978. I loved it. But most of its contents turned out to be utter gonads.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1743876180

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1743876180

epsilon 05-04-2025 19:45
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194006)
Not for the first time, you sound like one of those futurology picture books you used to be able to buy from the Puffin Book Club at school.

The sort that breezily assured us we’d have an android maid bustling round every respectable home by now.

I had a copy of this one, published in 1978. I loved it. But most of its contents turned out to be utter gonads.
I see his prophecy as being more like The Ladybird Book Of The Zombie Apocalypse. And just as likely to happen...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebmiw147DTE

GrimUpNorth 05-04-2025 20:27
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194006)
Not for the first time, you sound like one of those futurology picture books you used to be able to buy from the Puffin Book Club at school.

The sort that breezily assured us we’d have an android maid bustling round every respectable home by now.

I had a copy of this one, published in 1978. I loved it. But most of its contents turned out to be utter gonads.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1743876180

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1743876180
I love the 70's depictions of the robots - must make sure they appear to be females doing the housework. The robot French maid could be straight out of some fetish club :shocked:.

cheekyangus 05-04-2025 23:07
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194006)
Not for the first time, you sound like one of those futurology picture books you used to be able to buy from the Puffin Book Club at school.
That book club was excellent

OLD BOY 06-04-2025 15:35
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36194004)
Have they? According to every list I see there’s plenty of channels on DTT and satellite on a discretionary basis that could be withdrawn tomorrow if rational capitalists in the marketplace chose to do so.

I have every confidence rational capitalists will continue to do so far beyond 2035.



Starmer’s government is unpopular enough without telling millions of people they need to pony up for internet services they don’t want or need to watch television.
If the main PSB channels and their offshoots are missing from the EPG, there won’t be much to watch, will there? What kind of audience do you predict they will get?

The reality is, there will just be more shopping channels, channels showing old programmes and films and some music channels. While they will attract an audience, it will be a relatively small one, and the costs of transmitting them will not be met by the income these channels will bring in when the big hitters leave. It will simply not be worth it.

So, jfman, you’re the self proclaimed economist - how do you see the figures stacking up?

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194006)
Not for the first time, you sound like one of those futurology picture books you used to be able to buy from the Puffin Book Club at school.

The sort that breezily assured us we’d have an android maid bustling round every respectable home by now.

I had a copy of this one, published in 1978. I loved it. But most of its contents turned out to be utter gonads.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1743876180

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1743876180
It’s a shame you seem to be completely unable to address the points made when it comes to debating this subject.

Chris 06-04-2025 16:02
Re: The future of television
 
LOL.

LOL.

And, indeed,

LOL.

Hugh 06-04-2025 18:59
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
If the main PSB channels and their offshoots are missing from the EPG
"If" doing a lot of heavy lifting there…

jfman 06-04-2025 20:16
Re: The future of television
 
As we say in Scotland “If your auntie had baws….”

epsilon 07-04-2025 02:04
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194058)
If...

The reality is...
Erm, no. You simply can't create a "reality" based on "if".

OLD BOY 10-04-2025 14:36
Re: The future of television
 
It’s ‘if’ because it depends on what the government decides. Have you never heard of options?

Hugh 10-04-2025 15:30
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194401)
It’s ‘if’ because it depends on what the government decides. Have you never heard of options?
Yes, a lot of us think there are different options for the future of Television, including Broadcast Channels - you don't...

1andrew1 10-04-2025 15:45
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36194403)
Yes, a lot of us think there are different options for the future of Television, including Broadcast Channels - you don't...
That's a wrong opinion. Next! ;)

epsilon 10-04-2025 15:55
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194401)
It’s ‘if’ because it depends on what the government decides. Have you never heard of options?
Have you? You took one possibility and then went on to define the future based on that possibility and ignoring all others. Which, pretty much, sums up most of your posts. Try to consider the many other options...

OLD BOY 11-04-2025 11:40
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36194412)
Have you? You took one possibility and then went on to define the future based on that possibility and ignoring all others. Which, pretty much, sums up most of your posts. Try to consider the many other options...
episilon, of course I know there are many options! What planet are you lot on?

All I am saying is that of all the options, barring government intervention, this is what I see happening.

Why are you having such a problem with that? And yes, I get it that you and others disagree. That is your right, of course. But I have no such rights to have an opinion that varies with yours. I get that, too.

Chris 11-04-2025 11:46
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194478)
episilon, of course I know there are many options! What planet are you lot on?

All I am saying is that of all the options, barring government intervention, this is what I see happening.

Why are you having such a problem with that? And yes, I get it that you and others disagree. That is your right, of course. But I have no such rights to have an opinion that varies with yours. I get that, too.
The problem is this is a discussion forum. We don’t just state opinions, we turn them over, weigh them up, agree or disagree. Which is why you are repeatedly told that your opinion on this is a reflection of wishful thinking and an assumption that your preferred method of consuming TV is the one that everyone will one day adopt. You see yourself as forward thinking and ahead of the curve. Other people disagree with you. And your mildly indignant spluttering (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is evident in phrases like of course I know there are many options! What planet are you lot on?) is a function of the fact that in disagreeing with your opinion on this, you feel like other people are effectively questioning your lifestyle.

:shrug:

OLD BOY 12-04-2025 15:48
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194480)
The problem is this is a discussion forum. We don’t just state opinions, we turn them over, weigh them up, agree or disagree. Which is why you are repeatedly told that your opinion on this is a reflection of wishful thinking and an assumption that your preferred method of consuming TV is the one that everyone will one day adopt. You see yourself as forward thinking and ahead of the curve. Other people disagree with you. And your mildly indignant spluttering (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is evident in phrases like of course I know there are many options! What planet are you lot on?) is a function of the fact that in disagreeing with your opinion on this, you feel like other people are effectively questioning your lifestyle.

:shrug:
epsilon implied I didn’t consider other options - which is pretty well in line with what others on this thread have been saying. So my response was appropriate.

You repeat your incorrect belief that my opinion is a reflection of wishful thinking. No. I don’t ‘wish’ that the conventional TV channels will close down, I have merely said that I think that will happen. The PSBs are looking to an internet based future but that goes right over your heads, doesn’t it?

I don’t see what my lifestyle has to do with anything. You are clutching at straws in your effort to respond to my posts, but you have nothing to say. For example, WHY is the TV industry moving in exactly the direction I predicted back in 2015? ‘Digital First’ is the mantra now, and they do not see terrestrial broadcasting being worthwhile after 2035. It may not even last that long.

But of course, you know different. Why is that not a surprise?

Hugh 12-04-2025 16:08
Re: The future of television
 
You are conflating "PSBs are looking at an internet base future" with "conventional TV channels will close down", when the two things are different…

OLD BOY 12-04-2025 19:25
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36194561)
You are conflating "PSBs are looking at an internet base future" with "conventional TV channels will close down", when the two things are different…
I’m not confusing it at all. The opinion being aired on here is that we won’t go IP only AND the TV channels are safe.

I disagree with both.

Hugh 12-04-2025 20:38
Re: The future of television
 
No, you’re saying that’s what they’re saying, which isn’t the same thing.

People are saying PSB requirements mean that it’s unlikely that these channels won’t still exist after 2035, and separately that there is likely to be a mix of IP delivery and other delivery methods, such (potentially) satellite, DTT, 5G, and others…

For instance

https://www.5g-mag.com/post/lte-base...o-distribution

OLD BOY 12-04-2025 22:53
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36194584)
No, you’re saying that’s what they’re saying, which isn’t the same thing.

People are saying PSB requirements mean that it’s unlikely that these channels won’t still exist after 2035, and separately that there is likely to be a mix of IP delivery and other delivery methods, such (potentially) satellite, DTT, 5G, and others…

For instance

https://www.5g-mag.com/post/lte-base...o-distribution
Hugh - the PSB requirements are under review.

I doubt those views expressed in your post will hold up. Yes, I know it is a popular view on here that there will be a mix, but do you really believe that Skywill continue topay for expensive transponders when an alternative is available that will save them money?

Additionally, carrying on the live TV channels is an extra burden and an extra cost to broadcasters. I think the only thing that will save the conventional TV channels is the government itself.

epsilon 13-04-2025 00:46
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194478)
episilon, of course I know there are many options! What planet are you lot on?

All I am saying is that of all the options, barring government intervention, this is what I see happening.

Why are you having such a problem with that? And yes, I get it that you and others disagree. That is your right, of course. But I have no such rights to have an opinion that varies with yours. I get that, too.
I obviously don't have a problem with you "knowing" that there are other options. The problem is that you clearly know there are other options but then go on to define the future, solely based on your favoured option.
That isn't the future, it's a projection of your blinkered view.

---------- Post added at 00:46 ---------- Previous post was at 00:38 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194597)
Hugh - the PSB requirements are under review.

I doubt those views expressed in your post will hold up. Yes, I know it is a popular view on here that there will be a mix, but do you really believe that Skywill continue topay for expensive transponders when an alternative is available that will save them money?

Additionally, carrying on the live TV channels is an extra burden and an extra cost to broadcasters. I think the only thing that will save the conventional TV channels is the government itself.
PSB requirements have always been under review but there is no suggestion that they will be abolished.
Under review such as the debate over imposing a levy on streamers to fund UK based production which the DCMS seem to favour at the moment?

GrimUpNorth 13-04-2025 10:00
Re: The future of television
 
I wonder if in these uncertain times using the system as a backup for GPS would be another reason to keep it switched on, and if it's there and working why not keep using it?

Link

epsilon 13-04-2025 14:19
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36194616)
I wonder if in these uncertain times using the system as a backup for GPS would be another reason to keep it switched on, and if it's there and working why not keep using it?

Link
An alternative to GPS is strategically worthwhile but changing to a system that supports BPS is questionable. I wonder if it is something that could be built into DAB transmitters. The main issue, as I see it, is can UK terrestrial networks support this? Is there enough transmitter overlap to facilitate a working level of triangulation? A system built from scratch on cellular networks might be more appropriate.

OLD BOY 13-04-2025 17:49
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36194599)
I obviously don't have a problem with you "knowing" that there are other options. The problem is that you clearly know there are other options but then go on to define the future, solely based on your favoured option.
That isn't the future, it's a projection of your blinkered view.
You have just proved my point. Clearly, you and others cannot understand that my prediction as to what will happen is simply what I think will happen. I have acknowledged on a number of occasions that I could be wrong.

It is also true to say that I haven’t deviated much from how I see IPTV playing out, and I haven’t deviated much from that view, but I have never said that my prediction will come about no matter what.

---------- Post added at 17:49 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36194599)

PSB requirements have always been under review but there is no suggestion that they will be abolished.
Under review such as the debate over imposing a levy on streamers to fund UK based production which the DCMS seem to favour at the moment?
It appears that the main thrust of Ofcom’s view will be that PSBs must ‘innovate in content delivery, ensuring that they remain competitive and relevant. This involves embracing new technologies and platforms to reach audiences effectively.’

This does not necessarily mean that the government will require PSB channels to remain open, although of course, it’s possible that they might. But it’s not what the TV industry wants to see. They want just one means of transmission over the internet and ease of loading content.

So it’s an open question as to the eventual outcome, but I’ve told you what I think.

Is this clear enough for you?

epsilon 14-04-2025 06:02
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194647)
You have just proved my point. Clearly, you and others cannot understand that my prediction as to what will happen is simply what I think will happen. I have acknowledged on a number of occasions that I could be wrong.

It is also true to say that I haven’t deviated much from how I see IPTV playing out, and I haven’t deviated much from that view, but I have never said that my prediction will come about no matter what.

I haven't proved anything, you are just demonstrating how you apply your blinkered view to absolutely everything.


Quote:
It appears that the main thrust of Ofcom’s view will be that PSBs must ‘innovate in content delivery, ensuring that they remain competitive and relevant. This involves embracing new technologies and platforms to reach audiences effectively.’

This does not necessarily mean that the government will require PSB channels to remain open, although of course, it’s possible that they might. But it’s not what the TV industry wants to see. They want just one means of transmission over the internet and ease of loading content.

So it’s an open question as to the eventual outcome, but I’ve told you what I think.

Is this clear enough for you?
Ofcom doesn't really have a view, they are there to regulate, not to make policy. I think you will find that the DCMS is responsible for PSB policy.
And pointing out that it is only what you think without proclaiming that "this is the future" is, at least, some progress.

OLD BOY 14-04-2025 11:56
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36194668)
I haven't proved anything, you are just demonstrating how you apply your blinkered view to absolutely everything.
I have proved that you are not listening. I tell you I am aware of the options and I have concluded that my prediction is still valid, and you say I’m ‘blinkered’, which is hilarious. I’m blinkered because I have expressed an opinion that you disagree with, even when I tell you I’ve weighed up the options and acknowledge I could be wrong?

You are just being intolerant to other ideas and argumentative. You need to think again about who is ‘blinkered’. Why can you not just discuss the issue and help us to understand your reasoning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36194668)

Ofcom doesn't really have a view, they are there to regulate, not to make policy. I think you will find that the DCMS is responsible for PSB policy.
And pointing out that it is only what you think without proclaiming that "this is the future" is, at least, some progress.
Of course Ofcom will have a view. It’s considering the consultation results and it will make its recommendations to the government. It is at that point, DCMS will weigh it all up and come to a decision.

I have made it abundantly clear that my prediction is what I believe to be the future. There’s a difference.

epsilon 14-04-2025 12:48
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194682)
I have proved that you are not listening. I tell you I am aware of the options and I have concluded that my prediction is still valid, and you say I’m ‘blinkered’, which is hilarious. I’m blinkered because I have expressed an opinion that you disagree with, even when I tell you I’ve weighed up the options and acknowledge I could be wrong?

You are just being intolerant to other ideas and argumentative. You need to think again about who is ‘blinkered’. Why can you not just discuss the issue and help us to understand your reasoning?
You certainly haven't proved that I'm not listening but you have confirmed that you aren't listening. You are harping on about being aware of other opinions which is irrelevant. You didn't listen to my original point.

Far from suggesting that you aren't aware of other options, I'm all too aware that you know damn well that there are other options. My point was that, knowing these alternatives, you completely ignored them and went on to conclude "the future" solely based on your own view. That IS being blinkered.

I'm tolerant of any ideas as long as they are stated as ideas and opinions and not dressed up as an inevitable "future".

Deflection, obfuscation and gaslighting may work well for you over on the hard right echo chamber you moderate. As you keep demonstrating, it gets you nowhere on this forum.

Quote:
Of course Ofcom will have a view. It’s considering the consultation results and it will make its recommendations to the government. It is at that point, DCMS will weigh it all up and come to a decision.

I have made it abundantly clear that my prediction is what I believe to be the future. There’s a difference.
Ofcom's "view" isn't relevant, they are there to regulate, to smooth the way for implementing the "views" of the DCMS and for conducting consultations with stakeholders and the with the public. They can make recommendations based on research and evidence they have gathered but they cannot legislate. If you wish, you can even refer to the consultations as Ofcom's view, even though that isn't the case.

What you "believe" to be the future is an opinion, yes, a belief, you know, like kids believe in Santa....

OLD BOY 14-04-2025 14:15
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36194684)
You certainly haven't proved that I'm not listening but you have confirmed that you aren't listening. You are harping on about being aware of other opinions which is irrelevant. You didn't listen to my original point.

Far from suggesting that you aren't aware of other options, I'm all too aware that you know damn well that there are other options. My point was that, knowing these alternatives, you completely ignored them and went on to conclude "the future" solely based on your own view. That IS being blinkered.

I'm tolerant of any ideas as long as they are stated as ideas and opinions and not dressed up as an inevitable "future".

Deflection, obfuscation and gaslighting may work well for you over on the hard right echo chamber you moderate. As you keep demonstrating, it gets you nowhere on this forum.

Ofcom's "view" isn't relevant, they are there to regulate, to smooth the way for implementing the "views" of the DCMS and for conducting consultations with stakeholders and the with the public. They can make recommendations based on research and evidence they have gathered but they cannot legislate. If you wish, you can even refer to the consultations as Ofcom's view, even though that isn't the case.

What you "believe" to be the future is an opinion, yes, a belief, you know, like kids believe in Santa....
I have NOT ignored the alternatives, epsilon! Why do you keep saying that? You don’t have access to my head!

I have considered those alternatives and I don’t think the ones you espouse are more compelling, although, once again (how many times…?) I acknowledge they are possible outcomes.

Have you not ever heard arguments that conflict with your belief in something and still rejected those alternative arguments because you think yours are stronger or more likely? Of course you have, but it doesn’t mean you haven’t listened and thought about them.

And once again, given that I have acknowledged in these threads that I may be wrong, you cannot with credibility then accuse me of concluding ‘the future’ must be my future and that’s that.

I have not deflected or anything else. On the contrary, all I seem to be getting is that I must be wrong and statements I have made get turned into something else, then criticised on that new and false definition of what I have said. You are the one deflecting because this, like other posts on this subject, turn into personal attacks and add nothing to the discussion.

I am happy, very happy, to answer your points one by one, but you don’t answer mine. Funny that, and I’m supposed to be the deflecting, blinkered one.

So, why exactly do you think I am wrong? Maybe at last we can have a serious discussion about this (lives in hope without holding breath…)

epsilon 14-04-2025 15:25
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194685)
I have NOT ignored the alternatives, epsilon! Why do you keep saying that? You don’t have access to my head!

I have considered those alternatives and I don’t think the ones you espouse are more compelling, although, once again (how many times…?) I acknowledge they are possible outcomes.
I don't generally "espouse alternatives" as I don't have, or wish to own, a crystal ball, there are still many options.

Maybe you could explain this...
Quote:
The reality is, there will just be more shopping channels, channels showing old programmes and films and some music channels. While they will attract an audience, it will be a relatively small one, and the costs of transmitting them will not be met by the income these channels will bring in when the big hitters leave. It will simply not be worth it.
"The reality is, there will just be more shopping channels". Do explain how this "reality" in your comment is taking other options into consideration. It's a firm conclusion based on your opinion. Which other alternatives does it explicitly consider? I can't see any. Invisible ink maybe?

As far as terrestrial networks go, the UK is lagging behind other European countries with similar viewing patterns. The UK has no strategic planning for broadcasting and the network is sleep walking into obsolescence. We will probably end up doing a u-turn, as Ireland has with DAB, closing down the network then realising it was all a big mistake. Followed by a mad dash to reintroduce a transmitter network with more advanced technology. That's what happens when something is closed down without considering the implications.

https://www.worlddab.org/news/15160/plans-underway-to-bring-back-high-powered-dab+-multiplexes-to-ireland

OLD BOY 14-04-2025 16:40
Re: The future of television
 
OK, let’s clarify what I am actually saying in terms of my prediction.

Firstly, I originally concluded that (conventional) TV channels would cease to be, in favour of streaming. This appeared to be a logical step for the industry. As more and more content was being taken up by the streamers, it was clear that the leftovers would go to the TV channels, thus devaluing their content. As content deteriorated in quality and the channels relied more and more on archive material, most of the audience sought after by advertisers would migrate to the streamers. Over time, our conventional TV channels would close down, eventually leading to total migration of content to the streamers. I said all this would happen within 20 years.

Fast forward 10 years to the present day, and the streamers have proliferated. We have already lost some of our popular channels, such as Disney and FX. The broadcasters are emphasising ‘Digital First’ strategies to encourage viewers to use the streamers instead of the channels. Sky is no longer promoting satellite TV (Sky Q is being replaced in these promotions by Sky Stream and Sky Glass, which both are focussed primarily on streaming).

Cable is going the same way, and the writing on the wall for TiVo and 360 boxes is clear. Both boxes will be superseded by Virgin Flex eventually as the company seeks to put most of its efforts into broadband.

One thing that I did not expect is the recent explosion of streaming channels, first seen on Pluto. I think these may turn out to be a five minute wonder, because there is no publicly available schedule, no means of recording, and drama series are difficult to follow. I do acknowledge, however, that the lack of advance scheduling information could be remedied and that the difficulty in following drama series on a streaming channel can be overcome by resorting to the ‘on demand’ alternative, as provided by Pluto. But this is also evidence that the on demand system is superior to the streaming channels, and people will come to see this.

Some say that scheduled TV for the PSB channels could continue on IP, which is true, but the dwindling audiences that are already in evidence will eventually render this as financially unviable. The existence of the streaming channels do not prove that the bigger operators, with their much bigger budgets and overheads, will find this method at all worthwhile. The streaming channels phenomenon is entirely dependent on archive material and ‘YouTube’ style content.

I very much welcome the recent tendency for free streaming and reduced cost streaming with advertisements. This is quite different from how things appeared 10 years ago, when the big players were only offering subscription based alternatives to broadcast channels. Indeed, this was seen at the time to be a big draw because at last, we were free of unwanted advertising. The CEO of Netflix was quoted as saying that Netflix would never entertain advertisements. However, with the proliferation of new streamers all competing with one another, income generation reduced, and advertising options became attractive. I view this as a good thing, because it makes access to good streaming content more inclusive.

Moving on to the more recent debate on here, Ofcom is currently reviewing the whole scenario we are now facing, and PSB broadcasting is an important aspect of their review.

Ofcom’s own ‘realistic trajectory’ is as follows:

Between now and 2027: Hybrid systems (live channels over IP + streamers). Players still depend on live feeds for news/sports.

2027 - 2032: Gradual decline in channel-based delivery. Some niche or low-rating channels may be dropped entirely in favour of VOD.

2032+: Possible phase-out of the ‘channel’ concept altogether for many broadcasters except possibly for news and sports events.

That’s what Ofcom thinks, but I would go further. I think that Sky will stop using its transponders when existing satellite contracts run out and it will cease providing signals to its Sky Q boxes. Virgin will probably do the same around that time. Although a reduced number of channels appear on Sky Stream, Sky Glass and Virgin Flex, migration to the service and their emphasis on streaming is likely to lead to a marked decline in the number of these viewers watching the broadcast channels. That will reduce advertising income still further for the broadcast channels, rendering the terrestrial medium even more unattractive.

The support for live channels over IP seems to rely on arguments about the continuing need for live channels dedicated to news, sports and other live events (even though there is no reason why these cannot be accommodated on a streamer - eg premier football matches on Amazon); older viewers rely heavily on scheduled TV; and some people just like the positive experience of ‘channel hopping’. However, it should be noted that some manufacturers are working on “senior-friendly” modes for digital navigation, which I believe are easily addressed. As for ‘channel hopping’ what’s wrong with content hopping?

I don’t dispute that there may be government intervention, but I believe that if there were consultations with the broadcasters about leaving at least a basic live TV service going, the government would be expected to cough up. Given that the government is strapped for cash, how likely do you think this will be?

I will leave it there for the time being, but I hope that makes my position clear. While there are other possible outcomes to this, I think that the views of the TV industry and the cost of keeping existing terrestrial infrastructure going will be the big influencers in what is decided in the end. What the viewer wants is a secondary consideration, not the determinant, as some would have it.

That is my prediction, overlaid with some supporting facts, nothing more. Other views are available.

epsilon 14-04-2025 17:52
Re: The future of television
 
So a lot of waffle that sidesteps the question, which was to explain how your comment "the reality is..." took other options into consideration...
A simple question. I didn't ask or want you to regurgitate your beliefs. Oh well...

Chris 14-04-2025 18:25
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194687)
OK, let’s clarify what I am actually saying in terms of my prediction.

Firstly, I originally concluded that (conventional) TV channels would cease to be, in favour of streaming. This appeared to be a logical step for the industry. As more and more content was being taken up by the streamers, it was clear that the leftovers would go to the TV channels, thus devaluing their content. As content deteriorated in quality and the channels relied more and more on archive material, most of the audience sought after by advertisers would migrate to the streamers. Over time, our conventional TV channels would close down, eventually leading to total migration of content to the streamers. I said all this would happen within 20 years.

Fast forward 10 years to the present day, and the streamers have proliferated. We have already lost some of our popular channels, such as Disney and FX. The broadcasters are emphasising ‘Digital First’ strategies to encourage viewers to use the streamers instead of the channels. Sky is no longer promoting satellite TV (Sky Q is being replaced in these promotions by Sky Stream and Sky Glass, which both are focussed primarily on streaming).

Cable is going the same way, and the writing on the wall for TiVo and 360 boxes is clear. Both boxes will be superseded by Virgin Flex eventually as the company seeks to put most of its efforts into broadband.

One thing that I did not expect is the recent explosion of streaming channels, first seen on Pluto. I think these may turn out to be a five minute wonder, because there is no publicly available schedule, no means of recording, and drama series are difficult to follow. I do acknowledge, however, that the lack of advance scheduling information could be remedied and that the difficulty in following drama series on a streaming channel can be overcome by resorting to the ‘on demand’ alternative, as provided by Pluto. But this is also evidence that the on demand system is superior to the streaming channels, and people will come to see this.

Some say that scheduled TV for the PSB channels could continue on IP, which is true, but the dwindling audiences that are already in evidence will eventually render this as financially unviable. The existence of the streaming channels do not prove that the bigger operators, with their much bigger budgets and overheads, will find this method at all worthwhile. The streaming channels phenomenon is entirely dependent on archive material and ‘YouTube’ style content.

I very much welcome the recent tendency for free streaming and reduced cost streaming with advertisements. This is quite different from how things appeared 10 years ago, when the big players were only offering subscription based alternatives to broadcast channels. Indeed, this was seen at the time to be a big draw because at last, we were free of unwanted advertising. The CEO of Netflix was quoted as saying that Netflix would never entertain advertisements. However, with the proliferation of new streamers all competing with one another, income generation reduced, and advertising options became attractive. I view this as a good thing, because it makes access to good streaming content more inclusive.

Moving on to the more recent debate on here, Ofcom is currently reviewing the whole scenario we are now facing, and PSB broadcasting is an important aspect of their review.

Ofcom’s own ‘realistic trajectory’ is as follows:

Between now and 2027: Hybrid systems (live channels over IP + streamers). Players still depend on live feeds for news/sports.

2027 - 2032: Gradual decline in channel-based delivery. Some niche or low-rating channels may be dropped entirely in favour of VOD.

2032+: Possible phase-out of the ‘channel’ concept altogether for many broadcasters except possibly for news and sports events.

That’s what Ofcom thinks, but I would go further. I think that Sky will stop using its transponders when existing satellite contracts run out and it will cease providing signals to its Sky Q boxes. Virgin will probably do the same around that time. Although a reduced number of channels appear on Sky Stream, Sky Glass and Virgin Flex, migration to the service and their emphasis on streaming is likely to lead to a marked decline in the number of these viewers watching the broadcast channels. That will reduce advertising income still further for the broadcast channels, rendering the terrestrial medium even more unattractive.

The support for live channels over IP seems to rely on arguments about the continuing need for live channels dedicated to news, sports and other live events (even though there is no reason why these cannot be accommodated on a streamer - eg premier football matches on Amazon); older viewers rely heavily on scheduled TV; and some people just like the positive experience of ‘channel hopping’. However, it should be noted that some manufacturers are working on “senior-friendly” modes for digital navigation, which I believe are easily addressed. As for ‘channel hopping’ what’s wrong with content hopping?

I don’t dispute that there may be government intervention, but I believe that if there were consultations with the broadcasters about leaving at least a basic live TV service going, the government would be expected to cough up. Given that the government is strapped for cash, how likely do you think this will be?

I will leave it there for the time being, but I hope that makes my position clear. While there are other possible outcomes to this, I think that the views of the TV industry and the cost of keeping existing terrestrial infrastructure going will be the big influencers in what is decided in the end. What the viewer wants is a secondary consideration, not the determinant, as some would have it.

That is my prediction, overlaid with some supporting facts, nothing more. Other views are available.
Nothing new there at all.

What you believe has been clear for donkeys years, you repeat it ad nauseam every time you find a new link to a random digital marketing agency blogging on the subject. What would clarify things would be engagement with the broader topic, i.e. the alternative views epsilon has been trying to get you to engage with for the past several days.

But not only do you not engage with other possible scenarios, you misrepresent evidence supposedly in favour of your own position. Ofcom’s ’realistic trajectory’ cannot possibly be a total phase out of linear broadcast channels from 2032 when 2 of the 3 possible future pathways it has proposed, include keeping public service broadcasts on DTT. Funny how the one that aligns with your personal TV viewing habits is the one you think Ofcom sees as ‘realistic’. Confirmation bias, much?

Once again, however, the ‘tell’ that you somehow still don’t fully grasp the concepts at play here is that you seem to have totally made up the idea that Ofcom possibly sees a linear broadcast role for only news and sports channels. First of all: no, it doesn’t. The minimal DTT ‘nightlight’ service it postulates as one of its 3 future pathways would still carry the basic public service broadcasts channels. But, mainly, you seem to think retaining traditional scheduled channels for sport and news has something to do with the fact that these events happen regularly in any case and people want to engage with them ‘live.’

If you bother to read what Ofcom is actually saying, however, you would know that major peak viewing events - cultural events like royal weddings, Eurovision and major sporting fixtures - play absolute havoc with broadband networks. There is a long discussion about what demand peaks do to broadband networks on page 39 of the Ofcom report. Note in particular that Ofcom does not believe any existing IP-based technology can currently cope with an entirely IP based TV service for this reason, and it cannot predict what technologies might appear and solve that problem within the next 10 years.

So while Ofcom acknowledges a fully IP-based future for British TV as one of a range of possibilities from 2032 onwards, there is simply no way on earth you can conclude it is what they see as the ‘realistic trajectory’ when this one, of the three, would rely on technology that does not yet exist. You can’t plan a strategy that way.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/...government.pdf

OLD BOY 14-04-2025 19:18
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36194695)
So a lot of waffle that sidesteps the question, which was to explain how your comment "the reality is..." took other options into consideration...
A simple question. I didn't ask or want you to regurgitate your beliefs. Oh well...
It’s my conclusion, epsilon. I’m not seeking your agreement. You will stick to your guns, whatever the evidence to the contrary.

Do you deny that the studios are now putting all the good content on the streamers, leaving TV schedules looking pretty decimated compared with five years ago? Then why is it that so many of my neighbours and other people I meet complain there is nothing on the TV channels any more that they want to watch? It’s not just me saying that.

If you think the schedules are good, I’m glad you are happy. But in my opinion (note that phrase), the days of traditional broadcasting are numbered.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194701)
Nothing new there at all.

What you believe has been clear for donkeys years, you repeat it ad nauseam every time you find a new link to a random digital marketing agency blogging on the subject. What would clarify things would be engagement with the broader topic, i.e. the alternative views epsilon has been trying to get you to engage with for the past several days.

But not only do you not engage with other possible scenarios, you misrepresent evidence supposedly in favour of your own position. Ofcom’s ’realistic trajectory’ cannot possibly be a total phase out of linear broadcast channels from 2032 when 2 of the 3 possible future pathways it has proposed, include keeping public service broadcasts on DTT. Funny how the one that aligns with your personal TV viewing habits is the one you think Ofcom sees as ‘realistic’. Confirmation bias, much?

Once again, however, the ‘tell’ that you somehow still don’t fully grasp the concepts at play here is that you seem to have totally made up the idea that Ofcom possibly sees a linear broadcast role for only news and sports channels. First of all: no, it doesn’t. The minimal DTT ‘nightlight’ service it postulates as one of its 3 future pathways would still carry the basic public service broadcasts channels. But, mainly, you seem to think retaining traditional scheduled channels for sport and news has something to do with the fact that these events happen regularly in any case and people want to engage with them ‘live.’

If you bother to read what Ofcom is actually saying, however, you would know that major peak viewing events - cultural events like royal weddings, Eurovision and major sporting fixtures - play absolute havoc with broadband networks. There is a long discussion about what demand peaks do to broadband networks on page 39 of the Ofcom report. Note in particular that Ofcom does not believe any existing IP-based technology can currently cope with an entirely IP based TV service for this reason, and it cannot predict what technologies might appear and solve that problem within the next 10 years.

So while Ofcom acknowledges a fully IP-based future for British TV as one of a range of possibilities from 2032 onwards, there is simply no way on earth you can conclude it is what they see as the ‘realistic trajectory’ when this one, of the three, would rely on technology that does not yet exist. You can’t plan a strategy that way.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/...government.pdf
The reason for my post was to clarify my position, because even now, people on here are trotting out arguments I have not made or making presumptions about positions I have not taken.

Thank you for your take on it. Noted.

Chris 14-04-2025 19:32
Re: The future of television
 
Snarf.

You clarified it alright …

epsilon 14-04-2025 19:57
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194705)
It’s my conclusion, epsilon. I’m not seeking your agreement. You will stick to your guns, whatever the evidence to the contrary.
UK Media Changes has dissected what you call Ofcom's views in great detail and with much discussion but there isn't much point in discussing it here as that it isn't in the public domain. They have considered the points stakeholders have raised with Ofcom and also looked at what other countries are doing. Chris has summarised the Ofcom document far better than your interpretation of it but the Ofcom consultation is weak and doesn't consider some of the alternatives. As I've said elsewhere, the UK may end up playing catch up with this one.

Quote:
Do you deny that the studios are now putting all the good content on the streamers, leaving TV schedules looking pretty decimated compared with five years ago? Then why is it that so many of my neighbours and other people I meet complain there is nothing on the TV channels any more that they want to watch? It’s not just me saying that.

If you think the schedules are good, I’m glad you are happy. But in my opinion (note that phrase), the days of traditional broadcasting are numbered.
After years of integration, studios now seem to be going their own way. It's not totally about traditional broadcasting either but there is a pattern. Comcast's Spinco, plans to spin off ITV Studios. Streaming turned out to be very expensive and patterns are changing to merge streamers and integrate services. As production and distribution arms separate, studios producing content exclusively for their streaming / broadcast divisions will lessen and content will be more widely marketed. Nobody knows where that will go but, no doubt, you will selectively pick out snippets that reinforce your views and disregard anything that doesn't.

As for "noting the phrase", everyone on here is aware that you just regurgitate your opinions. My issue was that you state them as facts.

You can't really frame an opinion as "the reality is..." and expect to be taken seriously.

OLD BOY 11-05-2025 13:51
Re: The future of television
 
https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/concerns-o...-end-freeview/

[EXTRACT]

Broadcasters say that as more viewers switch to online, the existing digital terrestrial TV (DTT) network, used for Freeview, is becoming more expensive to maintain – based on a cost per viewer basis. The future of satellite TV is also uncertain.

Digital terrestrial TV is still the most popular traditional TV platform. The platform, which carries the Freeview service, is particularly relied upon by poorer and/or older viewers. Younger viewers are more likely to be online-only.

At present, all licences to broadcast services on Freeview expire at the end of 2034. The main UK public broadcasters have shown little interest in providing a traditional broadcast service beyond this point. Last year, they grouped together to create Freely to help migrate more people to internet TV.

Well, you can take me seriously or not, but to attempt to persuade people that conversion to IPTV only is not coming are just burying their heads in the sand.

This link appears to confirm everything I have said about 2035. Of course, the persistent refusniks on here will find some reason to deny it, but those with open minds will find it difficult to deny that this is now becoming a realistic prediction. Terrestrial TV will be no more in 2035.

Sad for some, but true. Now the government needs to start working with broadcasters to tackle the remaining barriers to a smooth transfer (eg making IPTV accessible to those unfamiliar with the technology, particularly some elderly people); broadband access, etc.

These are not insurmountable problems, but they do need to be addressed now to ensure a smooth transition.

Chris 11-05-2025 14:20
Re: The future of television
 
The only persistent thing here, OB, is your persistent refusal to acknowledge that Ofcom has proposed multiple solutions to this issue, only one of which involves switching Freeview off. The government does not ‘need’ to work on a smooth transition to IPTV/Freeview switch-off; it ‘needs’ to work on the most equitable, durable and cost effective solution, which *might*, but almost certainly won’t, involve an end to over-the-air broadcasting.

The link doesn’t confirm your opinions except inside your own head, where you persistently use motivated reasoning to elevate your opinions whilst explaining away those parts of the debate that don’t fit your narrow view.

Hugh 11-05-2025 14:43
Re: The future of television
 
Strangely enough, most dictionaries define "open mind" along the lines of

Quote:
An "open mind" refers to a willingness to consider new ideas, perspectives, and information, even if they differ from your own existing beliefs or opinions. It's about being receptive to new experiences and not immediately dismissing or rejecting them without careful consideration.
OB’s definition appears to be "those who agree with me"… ;)

Maggy 11-05-2025 16:05
Re: The future of television
 
I have completely lost the entire point of this thread.

OLD BOY 11-05-2025 16:34
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36196435)
The only persistent thing here, OB, is your persistent refusal to acknowledge that Ofcom has proposed multiple solutions to this issue, only one of which involves switching Freeview off. The government does not ‘need’ to work on a smooth transition to IPTV/Freeview switch-off; it ‘needs’ to work on the most equitable, durable and cost effective solution, which *might*, but almost certainly won’t, involve an end to over-the-air broadcasting.

The link doesn’t confirm your opinions except inside your own head, where you persistently use motivated reasoning to elevate your opinions whilst explaining away those parts of the debate that don’t fit your narrow view.
Clearly, you’re not reading the links properly then.

I am well aware of Ofcom’s view and I know it is one of several options. There are always choices to be made and it’s not Ofcom’s decision, it is the government’s. In the light of existing budgetary constraints, I don’t think the alternatives you prefer will fly.

I totally get it that you have a different view, Chris, as do a number of people on this thread. It’s a mystery to me why you are getting so upset about it. It’s only TV, after all, and we’re not the ones making the decision.

Just chill….

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36196440)
I have completely lost the entire point of this thread.
I’m sure many people don’t give a rats, Maggy, because in the scheme of things, it doesn’t matter one way or the other to most people.

I’m interested to see how this all plays out and I’m trying to have a discussion about it. Sadly, discussion on this subject is very emotional for some, although I fail to see why.

Chris 11-05-2025 16:50
Re: The future of television
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

Hugh 11-05-2025 19:35
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196441)
Clearly, you’re not reading the links properly then.

I am well aware of Ofcom’s view and I know it is one of several options. There are always choices to be made and it’s not Ofcom’s decision, it is the government’s. In the light of existing budgetary constraints, I don’t think the alternatives you prefer will fly.

I totally get it that you have a different view, Chris, as do a number of people on this thread. It’s a mystery to me why you are getting so upset about it. It’s only TV, after all, and we’re not the ones making the decision.

Just chill….

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------



I’m sure many people don’t give a rats, Maggy, because in the scheme of things, it doesn’t matter one way or the other to most people.

I’m interested to see how this all plays out and I’m trying to have a discussion about it. Sadly, discussion on this subject is very emotional for some, although I fail to see why.
Irony, thy name is OB…

Quote:
Well, you can take me seriously or not, but to attempt to persuade people that conversion to IPTV only is not coming are just burying their heads in the sand.

This link appears to confirm everything I have said about 2035. Of course, the persistent refusniks on here will find some reason to deny it, but those with open minds will find it difficult to deny that this is now becoming a realistic prediction.

OLD BOY 11-05-2025 20:03
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36196449)
Irony, thy name is OB…
Those highlights aren’t emotional, Hugh, they are statements of fact. I don’t think I’ve seen such hostility to a straight forward view of something so mundane as the future of TV. No amount of evidence will ever satisfy the people concerned because they are so dead against change.

Hugh 11-05-2025 20:56
Re: The future of television
 
Not emotional?

"persistent refuseniks" & "burying their heads in the sand", and from previous posts

"What planet are you lot on?"
"that goes right over your heads, doesn’t it?"
"You are just being intolerant to other ideas and argumentative",
"And blah, blah, blah."
"I’m not sure where you are coming from - it’s like you are living on a different planet."
"Still. as usual, you think you know better"
"I’m beginning to think some of you have shares in DTT!"

OLD BOY 12-05-2025 13:38
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36196451)
Not emotional?

"persistent refuseniks" & "burying their heads in the sand", and from previous posts

"What planet are you lot on?"
"that goes right over your heads, doesn’t it?"
"You are just being intolerant to other ideas and argumentative",
"And blah, blah, blah."
"I’m not sure where you are coming from - it’s like you are living on a different planet."
"Still. as usual, you think you know better"
"I’m beginning to think some of you have shares in DTT!"
There’s really no other response you can give to people who are avoiding reality, refusing to debate and just being downright hostile.

I’d have said a lot more if I was emotional.

Hugh 12-05-2025 13:45
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196476)
There’s really no other response you can give to people who are avoiding reality, refusing to debate and just being downright hostile.

I’d have said a lot more if I was emotional.
Disagreeing with you isn’t avoiding reality (only your version of it), or refusing to debate (pretty sure most of us have put alternative viewpoints, which is the very basis of debate), or being "downright hostile" (some gentle Mickey taking and sarcasm, sure, but I’ve seen very little hostility)…

Going by your posts, I thought you were "tired and emotional"… ;)

epsilon 12-05-2025 17:09
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196434)
https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/concerns-o...-end-freeview/

[EXTRACT]

Broadcasters say that as more viewers switch to online, the existing digital terrestrial TV (DTT) network, used for Freeview, is becoming more expensive to maintain – based on a cost per viewer basis. The future of satellite TV is also uncertain.

Digital terrestrial TV is still the most popular traditional TV platform. The platform, which carries the Freeview service, is particularly relied upon by poorer and/or older viewers. Younger viewers are more likely to be online-only.

At present, all licences to broadcast services on Freeview expire at the end of 2034. The main UK public broadcasters have shown little interest in providing a traditional broadcast service beyond this point. Last year, they grouped together to create Freely to help migrate more people to internet TV.

Well, you can take me seriously or not, but to attempt to persuade people that conversion to IPTV only is not coming are just burying their heads in the sand.

This link appears to confirm everything I have said about 2035. Of course, the persistent refusniks on here will find some reason to deny it, but those with open minds will find it difficult to deny that this is now becoming a realistic prediction. Terrestrial TV will be no more in 2035.

Sad for some, but true. Now the government needs to start working with broadcasters to tackle the remaining barriers to a smooth transfer (eg making IPTV accessible to those unfamiliar with the technology, particularly some elderly people); broadband access, etc.

These are not insurmountable problems, but they do need to be addressed now to ensure a smooth transition.
That site is very opinion based and often gets the facts wrong, so not a great way of confirming your opinion. You're just saying someone else has an opinion which is partially similar to your own. A good example of confirmation bias.

If you are looking at Freely to prove that IPTV is the future and linear channels are about to end, forget it. It isn't IPTV in the usual sense although, as a hybrid system, has some elements of IPTV. It doesn't use DASH / HLS streaming protocols for PBS channels, so is a departure even from what the BBC did with CLM on more recent versions of Freeview. On Freely, the PSB channels on connected TVs use a form of DVB over IP. Linear channels in a DVB format similar to Freeview but delivered over the internet rather than over the airwaves. A list of Freely's PSB Service IDs can be found here. Delivering linear channels this way allows Freely to make extra regions available and allows ITV / C4 channels to be in HD by default, even if not available on Freeview. If you are trying to use Freely as an example of an on-demand only, streaming only, platform with no linear channels. Sorry mate, get back to the drawing board. :D

Maggy 13-05-2025 11:36
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36196443)
Thank you.

Itshim 13-05-2025 14:07
Re: The future of television
 
Don't think that much of the service , but stream more and more

OLD BOY 13-05-2025 17:16
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36196501)
Thank you.
He’s misleading you, Maggie. This is about the future of TV.

You wouldn’t think so sometimes…:rolleyes:

Hugh 13-05-2025 18:19
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196508)
He’s misleading you, Maggie. This is about the future of TV.

You wouldn’t think so sometimes…:rolleyes:
To slightly misquote Ogden Nash

Quote:
The door of OLD BOY’s mind on the future of television opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.

Itshim 14-05-2025 12:15
Re: The future of television
 
Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former Chairman of ITV, said that what he termed the current "generous spread" of British broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) will need some consolidation or, at the very least, more cooperation in future.

"We're in danger of having no public service broadcasting within a decade, certainly within 20 years," he says. "We don't have a strategy for their survival. It's that serious. The regulators need to start thinking about it.

"Mergers may well be part of the answer. There should be fewer companies in the future."

Lord Vaizey, who was Culture Minister under David Cameron, put it baldly. "ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 should merge.

OLD BOY 14-05-2025 16:01
Re: The future of television
 
And for the genuinely inquisitive, who want to know what is really going on, I recommend you read Katie Razall’s article on the future of TV. Razall is the Culture and Media Editor of the BBC, so that must count for something, even on this argumentative thread.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2enydkew3o


[EXTRACT]

…The days of turning on your TV and finding an electronic programme guide listing channels – with BBC1 and BBC2 at the top, then ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 – are disappearing. The proposed date for the dawn of a new era is 2035; the end of traditional terrestrial TV as we know it.

When the increasingly expensive contracts to provide broadcast channels and digital terrestrial services like Freeview come to an end, the UK's broadcasters are likely to pivot to offering digital-only video on demand. (However this won't happen without a campaign to ensure older people are protected, as well as rural and low-income households who may not have high quality internet access.)

But if the aerials are turned off in 2035, is this the moment TV as we know it changes forever? If it becomes a battle between online-only British streamers and their better-funded US rivals, can the Brits survive? And, crucially, what will audiences be watching?

Paul 14-05-2025 18:35
Re: The future of television
 
Another extract ;

Quote:
The BBC remains the most watched of the traditional broadcasters. Today, people in the UK spend more time watching traditional broadcasters than they do streaming services. Figures show 87% of people age four and above watch the traditional broadcasters each month and they spend an average of 137 minutes a day doing so. By comparison, 78% of people watch a streaming service and they spend only 40 minutes a day doing so.

OLD BOY 14-05-2025 23:41
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36196554)
Another extract ;
Yes, we know, but so what? That’s just one argument amongst many, but crucially, it’s what the broadcasters want that will be the most likely thing that will happen.

A lot has changed in the last 10 years. Think of what may change in the next 10.

epsilon 17-05-2025 05:17
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196572)
Yes, we know, but so what? That’s just one argument amongst many, but crucially, it’s what the broadcasters want that will be the most likely thing that will happen.

A lot has changed in the last 10 years. Think of what may change in the next 10.
It's not really what the broadcasters "want, it's about the wishy-washy policies of successive governments on providing a transmission infrastructure. Europe has been far more proactive, keeping their DTT networks updated, even enabling over-the-air 4K channels. Also developing 5G broadcast as an eventual replacement. In this country it has been politics and debate as we walk, blindfolded, into the future. Broadcasters can't commit to an infrastructure which the government hasn't decided to support. As I've said previously, this country will probably end up playing catch-up.

OLD BOY 18-05-2025 11:27
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36196698)
It's not really what the broadcasters "want, it's about the wishy-washy policies of successive governments on providing a transmission infrastructure. Europe has been far more proactive, keeping their DTT networks updated, even enabling over-the-air 4K channels. Also developing 5G broadcast as an eventual replacement. In this country it has been politics and debate as we walk, blindfolded, into the future. Broadcasters can't commit to an infrastructure which the government hasn't decided to support. As I've said previously, this country will probably end up playing catch-up.
I think we are both right on that. Europe has shown no sign of giving up on their terrestrial infrastructure and indeed, they are modernising it and preparing for 5G broadcasting.

However, it is different in this country, and no such investment appears to be forthcoming. It is for this reason that the broadcasters are investing in an IPTV only environment.

As I’ve been saying, only a convincing government decision will change this. What are the chances?

epsilon 18-05-2025 17:47
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196727)
I think we are both right on that. Europe has shown no sign of giving up on their terrestrial infrastructure and indeed, they are modernising it and preparing for 5G broadcasting.

However, it is different in this country, and no such investment appears to be forthcoming. It is for this reason that the broadcasters are investing in an IPTV only environment.

As I’ve been saying, only a convincing government decision will change this. What are the chances?
Loss of votes at the last minute when the broadcast infrastructure starts to fail and with the realisation that broadband infrastructure simply can't cope with the demand. That's when the government will finally realise they should have been planning for this. Maybe even pulling a "South Africa" and having to keep the terrestrial network running after the rest of Europe has switched off, with all of the political problems that will come with that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD1aYYFEUtQ
Hard to imagine but South Africa is even behind us in securing a future for TV distribution.
I'm not quite sure that the broadcaster's plans actually align with your vision of the future https://www.t3.com/tech/tvs/bbc-to-r...es-of-channels. A set top box with 100's of channels... oh dear, oh dear.

RichardCoulter 18-05-2025 22:13
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36196750)
Loss of votes at the last minute when the broadcast infrastructure starts to fail and with the realisation that broadband infrastructure simply can't cope with the demand. That's when the government will finally realise they should have been planning for this. Maybe even pulling a "South Africa" and having to keep the terrestrial network running after the rest of Europe has switched off, with all of the political problems that will come with that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD1aYYFEUtQ
Hard to imagine but South Africa is even behind us in securing a future for TV distribution.
I'm not quite sure that the broadcaster's plans actually align with your vision of the future https://www.t3.com/tech/tvs/bbc-to-r...es-of-channels. A set top box with 100's of channels... oh dear, oh dear.
Sounds good. I wonder what the advantage of having TiVo would be seeing as it won't be able to record?

epsilon 19-05-2025 15:58
Re: The future of television
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36196759)
Sounds good. I wonder what the advantage of having TiVo would be seeing as it won't be able to record?
They have a GUI for TVs, so probably something similar on an add-on box. The way Freely is configured it should be relatively easy to add a recording option. It seems that the broadcasters, especially the BBC don't want to enable it.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16.
Page 12 of 13 « First 2891011 12 13
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum