|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
As for broadband not being able to cope, that’s for the birds. I don’t think anyone is sleepwalking into this. I seem to recall some scare story appearing on here some time ago that there wouldn’t be enough electricity to support the whole TV experience being provided by on demand over broadband. Don’t fall into the same trap, episilon, that would be embarrassing. |
Re: The future of television
We may come up short on Electricity, but not for TV, it uses a fraction of what EV's require.
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, totally unrelated to TV or broadband, electricity grids are becoming more susceptible to load balancing failures and even hacking (e.g. the recent outage across Spain & Portugal). Recent news stories of kill switches built into solar panels made in China are also enlightening. That said, such failures would have the same impact on broadcast tv so a little beyond the scope of this thread. ---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:24 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
In fact, the inability of the national broadband infrastructure to cope is discussed at length in the Ofcom document, which we all know he’s aware of (even though it’s still unclear if he’s actually read it). Amongst the many problems is that if you’re watching a live event and pause it to make a cup of tea, you can no longer be served from a multicast. The service provider then has to provide a bespoke stream for you, as well as everyone else who paused it to answer the door to the pizza dude. There comes a point when the network can’t cope - something that simply doesn’t happen with broadcast. It’s no coincidence that low budget FAST channels like most of what’s available on Pluto TV don’t let you pause/rewind. It allows them to multicast without the risk of network load running out of control. Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
You can build pausing into a device by using stream buffering.
Obviously it requires a local storage system, such as memory or disk. |
Re: The future of television
More disappointing news for OB and from one of his favourite sources.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2025...ht-switch-off/ |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
The point is those are premium add-ons to a basic service. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
American's are ditching pay tv and going back to terrestrial.
https://multicastnews.com/p/sinclair...sers-broadcast |
Re: The future of television
Explanation given by BBC technologist:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Some more info given from the BBC Technologist that others may find interesting: Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
But it needs a commitment. It's another scenario where Europe has made the commitment but here we have total silence. Again, for the various scenarios in the report. Things aren't going to happen overnight, decisions need to be made and infrastructure planned. The UK hasn't mass converted to DVB-T2 because no company will invest in the conversion without an assurance that the transmitters won't be turned off a few years hence. There needs to be a return on any investment. So, it's in the hands of the DCMS an important time for the department to get its act together. But what is happening? suggestions that the DCMS will be abolished and the workload split out to other government departments. Yeah, more sleep walking into the future... |
Re: The future of television
Which is why I cannot see any major intervention by the government. And it’s why the broadcasters are proceeding the way they would prefer.
You are absolutely right that Europe is charting a very different path from that of the UK. It will be very interesting to see how that pans out. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Of course, if Europe has a whole decides to keep UHF for DTT rather than mobile, this country doesn't have a "little England" option to opt out of that, there is one ITU, not a UK version of it. I was going to post this earlier but lost the link, fortunately it's been reposted over the weekend. A nice little summary for those who may have got TL;DR vibes from the full Coleago report. Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
See something pop up about the BBC trying to get those who watch other streaming services to pay for a TV license, I honestly can't see it happening, but with our government, you never know!
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Even the BBC wants this, which in my view is highly significant. As for what Europe may do, that doesn't have to affect us at all. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...-tv-broadcast/ [EXTRACT] The BBC and rival broadcasters are resisting efforts to delay the switch-off of terrestrial TV despite concerns the shift to streaming could leave older viewers behind. The corporation and its fellow public service broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 are locked in discussions with the Government about when traditional TV signals will be fully replaced by internet streaming. Under current legislation, broadcast TV is slated to continue until at least 2034. However, some campaigners are calling for this date to be pushed back to 2040 or beyond to ensure that older and more vulnerable audiences are not left disconnected. The campaigners are joined by Arqiva, the company that owns Britain’s TV masts and has a commercial interest in extending their life. The major broadcasters are pushing back against these efforts, arguing that they face hefty costs to keep ageing, energy-intensive signals running as audience numbers decline. |
Re: The future of television
Again, OB flatly ignoring the fact that most of the future pathways for DTT do not involve keeping the same ageing, energy-intensive signals running. But then you’re taking your cues from the rage-clicking Telegraph so probably not surprising.
As per the link from Ofcom, and various items posted by epsilon, there are ways of making DTT run more efficiently.* The broadcasters are squealing because of regulatory inaction that has raised the prospect of none of those being implemented and therefore a decision to continue DTT being, by default, a decision to continue using DVB-T2. *And also worth pointing out - again - that even in the highly unlikely event that if DTT is turned off in 2035 (it won’t be, because the concerns around access for the elderly and vulnerable are real and ultimately will have to be reckoned with), but even if it is, a vanilla TV service over IP will be broadcast, without pause/rewind, i.e. a bunch of FAST channels, which is the only way to make a nationwide IP broadcast system work within bandwidth constraints. |
Re: The future of television
If you say so, Chris.
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
The situation I have outlined will change only if the government intervenes. But do they have the money to compensate for the maintenance of an increasingly uneconomic system? Well, I suspect you know the answer to that one. As for pensioners and any other non-tech savvies, even I can come up with a solution to that one that my late granny could use, and she didn’t even like to change a channel. It’s not hard! Just give them a box with the free on demand streamers on it and enable a setting which delivers a pre-set streamer each time you switch on if necessary. It can then go straight into a selection of programming from that streamer without pressing any further buttons if required. Remote controls could also enable switching streamers in the same way that some are already available with the Netflix button on it, for example. The industry would pay that to achieve a DTT switch off and it could be part of a revised PSB remit. That is more likely to be the type of intervention the government makes, and the broadcasters will accept that. If you find any recent information that contradicts this post, please do provide it - I am all ears. |
Re: The future of television
Ah, another standard OB debating technique … the ‘all you have to do is…’
… in which all you have to do is assume the problem has actually been solved. No evaluation, understanding or design required. All you have to do is make a box. Here’s one I made earlier. And “the industry”, which doesn’t want to pay to keep using the reliable, well-understood thing they’ve been using for 20 years, will pay for this new thing that hasn’t been specified or designed, much less built and tested, because of course they just will. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
One thing to note though, you are somewhat clueless as to the government's position in this (I'm being kind :p:). Government compensation for an increasingly uneconomic system? Why? they have no responsibility for the infrastructure. The only reason for the uncertainty is the rolling licence system favoured by the government in this country, it brings uncertainty. Come up with an actual plan and the infrastructure providers (Arqiva etc) will fund and provide it. The reality is they aren't going to fund anything with no plans in place and no return on their investment. So now the government are putting out feelers for what they should do next. Studies such as the Coleago one are coming back with possible solutions such as keeping a terrestrial system with more advanced codecs such as HEVC and VVC, which could carry more services per multiplex. Another suggestion is more utilisation of SFN networks, which would reduce the spectrum needed but wouldn't be great for regional services. It probably escaped your attention but government funding of transmitter infrastructure ended many years ago with the abolition of the IBA. |
Re: The future of television
As I recall, the IBAs transmitters (or at least some of them) went to NTL, before ending up with Arqiva.
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
When it comes to analysis of industry data, I'd prefer to consider the summary provided by an industry publication (TVB Europe is published by the b2b division of Future plc) to the views of an individual obsessed with a "streaming only" future. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
Again, you are reading into my posts (or deliberately twisting them) that are not there. I absolutely did not say the government would compensate - I made it absolutely clear that they didn’t have the money to compensate broadcasters, and that therefore, the broadcasters would get what they wanted (ie, IPTV only). You have not addressed the problem that would negate any plans to upgrade the DTT system, which is that the broadcasters don’t want two forms of distribution, particularly with DTT audiences declining. What I said was that the broadcasters would want compensation to do this, which of course, they won’t get. You are clinging on to this romanticism that TV channels will somehow survive these changes and ignoring or attempting to rubbish anything that might suggest otherwise. Some of you ask question after question of me which I try to answer every time, but you don’t answer those questions put to you, do you? So yes, you are playing a game. |
Re: The future of television
I'd get another cause OB. There are bigger things to worry about than the future of TV. Take the climate , or health service for example... Much more worthy of your time and effort :)
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
My view has not shifted from what I said 10 years ago, and I see everything developing the way I said it would. I’m not looking for confirmation, I am looking for anything that might happen to disrupt this process. Nothing has been revealed so far in this thread, despite those desperate responses that are designed to look so knowledgeable. You don’t have any answers to the points I’ve made in the above paragraph that stand up to scrutiny. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but really, your rude posts are beyond the pale. I much prefer a sensible discussion. I rose above all this playground stuff many moons ago. ---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Is it worth all the evangelical ' only my view matters' zeal though OB? It's only tv. You have one view , other have theirs. Accept to differ? Then go and do something worthwhile. Food banks always need volunteers and they don't argue about the future of TV...
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
DTT could be improved as you say, but the point is that the broadcasters only want one system. You are not grasping that, are you? ---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:38 ---------- Quote:
That 2035 date I postulated 10 years ago is now all over the media, but it’s like water off a duck’s back on this forum! :rolleyes: |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Telegraph's theory of broadcasters only wanting one system doesn't fly. Even with 405 line and analogue switch offs they ran dual systems for many years for better continuity of service. Same with the medium wave switch off, where services have continued for years with only a handful of listeners. Costs there are phenomenal, very high power transmitters and only carrying a single service. Remember that DTT transmitters each carry a multiplex with dozens of services, so the cost per service is relatively low. Same again with DAB radio, why aren't they broadcasters pressing to shut down the FM transmitters? As I said, the one system theory simply doesn't fly. It's not what is happening in the rest of the broadcasting world. Quote:
---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ---------- Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXiZHXkG-ac |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
… which it eventually will. Slowly and after the usual delays borne of complacency, but it will get its act together.
Public service broadcast licence terms are set by government. Ultimately, the BBC, ITV and channels 4 and 5 will broadcast via the delivery mechanism they are told to. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
I have already drawn attention to the fact that broadcasters want IPTV only. It’s not hard to see why. It’s cheaper than continuing to support the DTT system and there’s less financial outlay and work without scheduling programmes. New stuff can just be added as a new tile on the system. No more problems with programmes that need editing to fit them into the slot. No more other trying to find archive content to fill the increasingly blank schedules on each channel. The coveted viewers cherished by advertisers are moving on line. That is where broadcasters get better returns than on traditional channels, which are watched by fewer people each year and increasingly by an audience reluctant to spend much money. On the other hand, we have Ofcom and the government. Ofcom is concerned by the older TV audience who might get left behind if IPTV was the only option left to watch TV. It will push this problem to the government. No doubt the government will consult with the broadcasters, and they will come up with their solutions to the problem and make it clear to the government that it will not be economic for them to continue to use DTT. The government will have to contemplate these arguments and also bear in mind that there will soon be pressure to use the DTT spectrum for other purposes, although as has been pointed out, there are proposals to improve the DTT infrastructure, and so the views of Arqiva will then need to be taken into account. Then there’s the TV viewers.There is a sizeable chunk of viewers who are campaigning against shutting down DTT before 2040. The main problem is that there is a cost to that - who is going to bear that cost? The broadcasters will push back hard against that - even Davie of the BBC believes that, and he has no need to be concerned about advertisements as the commercial stations are. I don’t deny that there may be some sort of basic DTT channel run by the BBC, but they will point out that this will come with a price tag. Who will pay for that? Perhaps it could be paid for with the cost savings of transferring most programming to IPTV only. I can assure you that I am listening intently to the counter arguments, Chris, but I keep coming back to the cost of having two systems, and who will pay, because the broadcasters won’t want that without compensation. And, of course, the government has no money. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
I don't think that the streaming service will be VOD only, I think that there will be streamed linear channels.
The commercial channels & advertisers will love this as people won't be able to FF through the adverts. |
Re: The future of television
Indeed, and I’m sitting through some unskippable adverts on Pluto TV right now, in the middle of an episode of Mission Impossible. As I’ve been saying for years, sometimes you can’t be bothered wading through tons of VOD trying to pick something. A nice bit of nostalgia is all that’s required … pick one of the channels and jump in to whatever ep happens to be playing.
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
What we have here is two completely different systems. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Switching to IP delivery does not equate to TV as VOD only, as many people have told you, over and over again. IP is just a delivery mechanism. Even if it were technically and societally feasible to switch to an entirely IP-based delivery mechanism 10 years from now, linear broadcast channels are not going to stop in 2035. Their utility is too great. I have (almost) every streaming service it’s possible to get in the UK but even I have spent the last 3 hours watching linear TV, entirely IP delivered (we never did get round to installing an aerial on our new house). First, BBC1, then Pluto TV. And it is FAST services like Pluto that really are the proof of the pudding. If we were hurtling towards a future in which nobody wants linear broadcast, where on earth have the FAST services sprung from, and why? |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
---------- Post added at 00:57 ---------- Previous post was at 00:44 ---------- Quote:
You also filtered out the other multi-platform broadcasts mentioned. You know, the FM / DAB duplication. If it helps you to process this, I know you have difficulty with over the air systems, you can also consider the other platforms simulcasting these services. BBC Sounds, Global Player, Rayo, Nation Player etc and also the raw streaming available on web browsers and wi-fi radios. Multiple simulcasts, yet no call to switch off the expensive single service FM transmitters. And no demands that the government compensate them for, you know, providing their service to their listeners. ---------- Post added at 00:59 ---------- Previous post was at 00:57 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
As for this point you make about compensation, where have I said anywhere that the government or anyone else had to pay compensation? What I am saying is that unless compensation is available, the broadcasters will be unwilling to keep funding the existing system. Quote:
The FAST channels were never a part of my prediction, but my view is that they will indeed survive the switchover to IPTV only. But don’t expect the likes of BBC, ITV and the rest to follow - they will stick with on demand because it saves them costs. Quote:
---------- Post added at 17:03 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ---------- Quote:
As long as the FAST channels can get more advertisement funding than it costs to run these services, then they will continue to survive. ---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:03 ---------- Quote:
The broadcasters want to put out their content on demand via IPTV only. This is the issue you need to address because it is the one thing that is most likely to dictate which road is taken in the next few years. If you don’t believe me, ask Tim Davie. As you know, the BBC is always to be relied upon to deliver the news correctly (or so you tell me on here)! |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Cutting to the chase, the elephant in the room seems to be Freely.
If Old Boy is able to address the point as to why broadcasters are hmm, freely doing something that goes against his perception of what they want to do (to make their content on-demand only) then I think we may be able to make some useful progress on this thread. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Of course Freely has TV channels on it. TV channels are still broadcasting, and will be for the next 5-10 years. Freely was designed to show them during this transitional phase as well as providing on demand access, so what’s your point? The main TV channels are likely to disappear within that timeframe. That is what the broadcasters envisage. Assuming that happens, Freely will still offer streaming channels but it won’t be able to offer conventional TV channels because, if all goes without a hitch, they will no longer exist. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
If there was any truth in your assertion that "Freely was designed to show them during this transitional phase", then surely they would have just left the traditional broadcast versions in place on Freely. The broadcasters have created a completely new infrastructure just for, wait for it... traditional linear channels. |
Re: The future of television
I feel like there should be a drum roll in there somewhere. :D
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2025/06/1.gif |
Re: TV Show Renewals & Cancellations
whats happening with sky? do they have a deal with HBO still or is that over?
|
Re: TV Show Renewals & Cancellations
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
My take on everything I've read on this subject is that only the FAST channels will ultimately survive this change. ---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ---------- Quote:
Quote:
As an audisnce, we don't have as much control as you think. As long as the majority use streaming as all or part of their TV consumption, the broadcasters will have the confidence to make the change they want. The government might expect the BBC to provide a channel for the minority, but that is all. |
Re: The future of television
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1756390046 |
Re: The future of television
You are so convincing, Chris [COUGH]
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
<second part removed> Do not start yet another posting argument with OB. It serves no purpose, just irritates everyone reading the topic. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
What you "appreciate" is not relevant here, I advise you not to start a fight you cannot win. |
Re: The future of television
In a surprise move, Disney are said to be relaunching Disney Junior HD as a linear channel...
More details in the Coming Soon thread. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
This is the question I asked: Have the parallel DVB services over IP introduced for broadcast on Freely designed as a transition rather than a permanent feature? This is the answer I received: It looks like the “parallel DVB over IP” part of the Freely service in the UK is intended as a transition rather than a permanent fix — part of a longer-term move toward IP-delivery of linear TV. Here’s what the evidence suggests, and what the roadmap appears to be: ⸻ What Freely is, and its hybrid approach • Freely (launched in April 2024 by Everyone TV) aims to replicate the terrestrial TV experience but using both DTT (over the air via aerials) and IP (broadband / internet delivery).  • It uses HbbTV Operator Application (OpApp) technology to enable linear TV channels delivered over IP to appear and be used much like broadcast channels, with seamless switching in the TV guide etc.  ⸻ Is this arrangement transitional? Yes — there are several indications that the inclusion of parallel DVB broadcast services (e.g. DTT via aerials) is expected to be phased out over time, once IP delivery is sufficiently capable and universal. Some of the key points: 1. IP-only future is explicitly part of the plan. Everyone TV says Freely is designed to “position UK broadcasters for an IP-only future.”  2. Support for DTT is “initially” part of the service, with eventual possible full transition to IP. The “Future of TV distribution” report confirms that Freely launched supporting DTT and IP, with the plan for satellite next, and with the express idea of “any future transition from delivery via DTT to IP only.”  3. Licencing / regulatory spectrum horizons. The licences for DTT broadcast (digital terrestrial television) in the UK currently run until the end of 2034.  This suggests that DTT will remain supported at least until then, but implies that after that date there could be scope for switch-off of DTT in favour of IP, assuming other technical, commercial and regulatory preconditions are met. 4. Dependence on Device Support and Internet Coverage. A full IP switch requires sufficient broadband connectivity everywhere, support in TV sets / hardware, fallback options etc. Freely is being built with the idea that many homes will have reliable broadband, but in practice, until (a) the remaining homes without good broadband are addressed, (b) devices are broadly compatible, and (c) IP delivery can replicate or exceed what broadcast provides (reliability, picture quality, low latency, etc.), broadcast will continue.  ⸻ What this means in practice • Initially, users will often see both broadcast (via aerial) and IP versions of channels. Which delivery is used may depend on the device and setup, or user preference, or sometimes fallback (e.g. if aerial/broadcast signal is weak or unavailable).  • Over time, more channels may migrate to being provided only over IP, especially where cost, spectrum reallocation, or efficiency make broadcast less viable. • The transition is expected to occur over a timeline of years. The reports suggest that by the 2030s there might be enough coverage and consumer uptake that DTT could be switched off, or at least greatly reduced.  ⸻ Conclusion So: yes, Freely’s parallel service (broadcast + IP) appears to be a bridge rather than a permanent state. The design is explicitly to move toward a broadcast-to-IP transition in a way that is seamless (so viewers don’t see much change), but with DTT maintained during the transition to ensure coverage, inclusion and reliability until IP can fully take over. As for the ‘linear ‘ channels themselves, these are unlikely to be broadcast as streaming services in the future because having these running side by side with streaming videos is uneconomic. However, the cheap as chips FAST channels are likely to continue for the time being. In the short term after 2035, the government might insist that the main five channels continue to be displayed as streaming channels. However, the long tail of smaller and themed linear channels could well be replaced by on-demand libraries or algorithmic streaming feeds. The end state is probably a hybrid world: a smaller core of linear IP channels plus a wide mix of streaming content. |
Re: The future of television
https://www.article19.org/resources/...-want-to-hear/
Quote:
Quote:
If one asks the question "are parallel DVB services over IP a permanent feature", the answer is Quote:
Can I ask which "AI" you used, please? Google Private browsing Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
AI is not to be trusted for giving correct answers at this stage.
I asked it about the serious crimes of a man I was watching a programme about. I then put in my own name to see what info it had on me, it came back attributing the crimes from the previous search to me! It also told me that BBC1, BBC2, ITV & Channel 4 were on 405 line VHF TV in this country. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Maybe the World would be a better place without it :D |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Ten years is a long time these days in terms of TV technology and viewer acceptance. Ten years ago, it was a common misconception that you could only view Netflix and YouTube on your computer. Regarding your question, I use various AI tools, but this one was Chat GBT. ---------- Post added at 12:01 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Any parallel service is transitional, the same applied to radio and analogue / digital tv transitions. The hybrid system is always transitional, until the legacy system is turned off. Let's dive deeper with OB's favoured friend... err.. AI chatbot. Asking a similar question to OB, it gave the reply (lots of irrelevant AI nonsense clipped): Quote:
What do you mean by "transitional step"? Quote:
So the broadcast + IP stage is transitional but what about the new DVB over IP infrastructure is this a permanent replacement? Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
1 Attachment(s)
Image added as the summary table was mangled
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Also which AI service you are utilising. I have found Grok, Gemini and ChatGPT can be very helpful. However I also use it for some image editing and restoration of old photos. Again you need to be very detailed and specific otherwise it can go Rogue. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
That is the point! |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Only time will tell whose opinion is right. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
You stated that this wasn't what you had read (hardly surprising as the Freely specs aren't in the public domain). You attempted to ask your buddy, the AI bot, in an attempt to verify your opinion. Your question was misleading and you misinterpreted the reply. When your AI conversation was analysed by Google AI it responded: "The phrasing was misleading: The statement that "parallel DVB over IP... is intended as a transition rather than a permanent fix" was poorly worded. It should have been more explicit about distinguishing between the parallel service (transitional) and the underlying IP technology (permanent)." Asking specific questions to both Google AI and your buddy ChatGPT concluded that a new channel based infrastructure is being developed for continuity (of linear channels) after the transmitter network closes. A reminder again that your favoured AI proclaimed: Strategic Goal: Everyone TV and UK regulators are aiming for a "DTT-equivalent" experience over IP that is:
The aim is to create a DTT-equivalent experience over IP. Do you not see the part highlighted in blue? it says that the plan is for Linear (live channel-based) content. A strategic goal is not an opinion. You opened the door to AI generated answers, claiming "I asked my good friend AI, which has proved remarkably accurate with the various questions I’ve asked, often confirmed later by professionals I have asked." So why do you not accept what your good friend is now spelling out for you? A good example of confirmation bias perhaps. Let's have a look at the AI comment: "Everyone TV and UK regulators are aiming for a "DTT-equivalent"", specifically mentioning linear channels. The owners of Everyone TV are the broadcasters. Therefore it is the broadcasters themselves planning a future for the continuity of linear channels. Your experiment with AI was not a good representation of an analytical mind. You failed to realise that asking if parallel services are transitional would inevitably result in "yes" as a reply. Which is why I went back to your AI source and got it to break down the detail, establishing that the new DVB over IP infrastructure is a permanent replacement for terrestrial DVB. Again, not an opinion. Chat GPT rephrased my DVB over IP term as "DVB-like over IP" I didn't dwell on that in my reply on here as it was just ChatGPT covering for its lack of a source to back up the actual format. I actually tied it down on that too, showing it some of the Freely metadata which I can't post on here. On examining the metadata, it replied: The IP infrastructure used by Freely seems to be formally DVB-compliant or DVB-derived, not merely DVB-like. That is a problem you will have in trying to access the information, it isn't readily available, isn't indexed in search engines and isn't available to AI unless you specifically give it access. To sum up, I don't deal with opinion and speculation, only with facts derived from analysis of data and metadata and information received from industry contacts. Quote:
Other than that, if the intention had been to discontinue channels with the demise of terrestrial transmitters, it would only have been necessary to support the existing DVB T/T2 services in the interim period. PSBs simply don't have enough cash to invest in something they don't plan to keep. And that's all from me for the foreseeable future as I part company with the forum to concentrate on actual industry events. For those who know me and need to contact me, you know where I am... |
Re: The future of television
OK, if you say so, epsilon. Have a nice (and less argumentative) life.
PS - I will prove you wrong! :Peace: |
Re: The future of television
Another sign of the times.
https://www.advanced-television.com/...ts-dvr-market/ Goodbye, TiVo, old friend. [EXTRACT] TiVo Corporation is quitting its consumer Digital Video Recorder (DVR) market. At its peak there were millions of TiVo recorders in the market with users praising its time-shifting technology. Launched in 1999 the technology was capable of skipping ads and pausing live transmissions, technology which is now commonplace but at the time was revolutionary. More recent devices have been available with 4K storage capability. However, streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu and their competitors make pausing, rewinding and other functionality commonplace. |
Re: The future of television
I had a Tivo back in the early 2000's, but they stopped doing them.
I think the subscriptions carried on for a few years, but by then we had a Sky box so stopped paying for it. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...v-service.html It will kill Sky and VMs ambitions to prevent the riff raff from fast forwarding through ads. Recording is the future (for the less brain washed) . |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Tivo has a massive presence now in the "smart" tv market, so I wonder if it's just the case of concentrating on that, or whether they plan to literally shut everything down?? |
Re: The future of television
Come March 26, I will cancel my VM TV, keeping the BB and phone (if its cheaper)
Prime & Netflix will keep me happy |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
If you really want to save money with Virgin, get Virgin Flex. You can get it for peanuts and for a bit extra, you can access Sky and of course the popular streamers of your choice. If you are happy to break with linear TV altogether (it’s coming sooner or later anyway), just pay for an Apple or Amazon Fire stick or similar and just pay for the streamers of your choice. |
Re: The future of television
https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/upbeat-arq...eviews-future/
[EXTRACT] Broadcast infrastructure company Arqiva has posted an upbeat assessment of its TV business, which includes the operation of two national multiplexes delivering over 30 live Freeview TV channels to UK homes. In what could be Freeview’s last decade before the UK moves to an all-streaming environment, Arqiva’s latest financial report confirmed it has renewed distribution contracts with a number of broadcasters, keeping services on Freeview into the 2030s. Earlier this year, technical upgrades to one of Arqiva’s multiplexes increased its channel-carrying capacity. This has enabled the return of children’s channel Pop – previously available only via streaming on Freeview – and the launch of Hobbycraft TV. By summer 2025, Arqiva reported 97% utilisation of its Freeview capacity. It appears that linear TV is fairly secure until 2035. Arquiva is happy with the extra channels it is providing, but actually the number of channels is less important than the content on those channels and how many viewers them. I was looking through the Freeview channels the other day. I doubt many watch most of them. The government expects to make a decision on the future of Freeview early next year. |
Re: The future of television
What you believe or doubt vis a vis viewing figures is neither here nor there. For starters, the figures are actually available - BARB collects them. And then, as others have said, over and over, these channels don’t need large viewer numbers to be viable. They’re broadcasting repeats over mature infrastructure from largely automated play-out suites. The cost of providing one of these channels is comfortably less than the revenue from the syndicated advert packages they run, or else they wouldn’t be doing it.
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
So, it’s not only a question of the cost of programming being cheaper as there are more and more repeats, but it is also a question of audience figures and where the advertisers will go to follow the more intelligent audiences. No-one with half a brain is going to subject themselves to endless repeats of repeats, are they? Either they won’t bother watching anything vaguely stimulating more or they will succumb to the streamers. If the government decides in the New Year to extend its support to these broadcast channels and Freeview beyond 2025, I think they will live to regret it (if indeed they are still in power by then). https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2025...f-10m-viewers/ |
Re: The future of television
Ask yourself why a channel like Pop, for example, would be taking the opportunity to get back in the EPG. Now, just the same as when our kids were young (15-odd years ago now), parents are happy to have a channel like that on in the living room, just playing out from show to show while the kids half-watch it while playing of whatever. The strength of a linear schedule is the same as it ever was - there is zero friction from a consumer point of view. It’s just there when you want it.
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Don't forget that we are in a transitional phase of this change, and during this time, content providers will be testing things out. |
Re: The future of television
I bet this wasn't on Old Boy's list for 2025!
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Joining POP, another kids channel, back in linear world. And it’s not just young kids, the kidults who are the main target for BBC Three weren’t watching in sufficient numbers when that channel went on-demand only, so they brought it back.
Linear schedules are going nowhere because they serve a useful purpose. Anyone who hasn’t spent the last 10 years staking their reputation on their extinction can see that. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
The Pop Player app and website, which combines content from Pop, Tiny Pop, and Pop Max, will remain available, as will streaming-only versions of the channels. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
They’re ceasing traditional RF broadcast, but they will continue to offer a linear schedule over IP. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
The linear (or not) nature of content delivery is a major aspect of this entire discussion. Have you gone wading in without bothering to understand the context (again)? FAST channels have an EPG. The platform has developed piecemeal so EPGs for linear channels delivered over IP lack a unifying brand name (Freeview and Freesat are, at the end of the day, brand names for an EPG more than anything else, even though the branding encompasses the entire user experience). But nevertheless they all have one. Notwithstanding any of the above, the major bone of contention ever since this thread and its predecessors got going was whether or not the advent of on-demand streaming services meant that linear scheduled broadcast TV was doomed to end. FAST channels are the very reason why on-demand streaming *will not* become the exclusive delivery method for TV. Free, Advert-Supported TV over internet protocol, IP being the delivery technology most of us will be using 10 years from now. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
AIUI, they won't be on the EPG's of the traditional broadcasters as FAST channels or anything else, is this not correct? |
Re: The future of television
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
FAST channels won’t be on the Freesat, Freeview or VM EPG because these EPGs are designed to list channels delivered by satellite, terrestrial, or cable broadcast, as the case may be. FAST channels are delivered over IP and they appear in EPGs dedicated to IP delivery. This is a nascent technology and EPGs for FAST-IP channels are fragmented. But don’t forget there was no coherent EPG for free-to-air satellite TV for many years; your choices were either an un-subbed sky box which listed more locked subscription channels than free ones in its EPG or any number of different implementations from different receiver manufacturers, of varying quality. I have attached a screen shot of the Pluto.tv EPG to this post to illustrated what a FAST service provider EPG presently looks like. I suspect a few years from now, this sort of provision will find its way into Freely, the IP-EPG for public service broadcasters. |
Re: The future of television
But there are FAST channels on the Virgin EPG :confused:
|
Re: The future of television
A commercial decision by Virgin :shrug:
|
Re: The future of television
FAST channels stop the punters fast forwarding through ads. Thats why VM and it advertising paymasters are keen on it, and why they are pushing streaming boxes.
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ---------- Quote:
As for whether the channels will continue to exist after the changeover, this is the crucial area of debate. It’s interesting to note that even some of our FAST channels besides those on Pluto TV are now being offered on demand. It’ll be interesting to see where the audience goes. https://www.advanced-television.com/...ent-on-demand/ [EXTRACT] Virgin Media O2 is giving Virgin TV customers access to linear FAST channel content via VoD at no extra cost. All Virgin TV customers can now watch episodes from their favourite FAST channel shows whenever suits them outside of the linear TV schedule. Customers can access the catch-up content via Virgin Media’s On Demand streaming app as well as via the Search function on their home screen. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:02. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum