Re: The future of television
 

There’s no conflict that I can see. Those 100s of channels will end up being streaming channels, which are a very poor substitute for the established channels that are most watched in this country.

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
 

Did you not read my comments a few posts back about Freely delivering channels by DVB over IP, so no different to the existing terrestrial network. It certainly isn't your dream vision of on-demand streaming only and the end of linear channels.

Studies have shown that the existing broadband infrastructure cannot cope with events attracting a mass audience. It is one of the scenarios being examined by the DCMS. "The cloud" isn't designed to massively increase bandwidth at the drop of a hat.

Now you are just being silly, although I'm not sure why I should be surprised by that.
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 ----------

I'm guessing the electricity comment is just one of his typical obfuscations.

Re: The future of television
 

What you’re experiencing here is one of OB’s standard tactics, the ‘breezy dismissal’, in which he hopes he sounds so authoritative and certain of his facts that everyone will assume he’s read up on the subject and must know what he’s talking about.

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.

My bad, you totally get it after all :D

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
 

Well yes, we used to call that Sky-Plus, or TiVo. :D

The point is those are premium add-ons to a basic service.

Re: The future of television
 

I call it Sky Q ;)

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:

Re: The future of television
 

Back to analogue then. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Hahaha 😆


Some more info given from the BBC Technologist that others may find interesting:

Re: The future of television
 

Thanks, Richard, for a helpful input on this thread, which is welcome!

Re: The future of television
 

If it's DTT but not DVB then presumably it would be 5G broadcast. UHF frequencies aren't really useful to mobile companies for 5G, data works much better and faster at higher frequencies. It is useful for "broadcast" whether that is OTA updates or broadcasting in the normal sense as it gets out further. Less bandwidth but covering a wider area, obviously not really useful for lots of mobile "cells" because the bandwidth isn't there.
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
 

It isn't broadcasters proceeding in the way they prefer, they may well prefer to not fix what isn't broken and carry on with DTT. They don't own the infrastructure and those who should be making the decisions are sitting on their hands.

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.

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
 

Why are you saying that broadcasters may prefer to stick with DTT? Everything I'm reading on this subject indicates they want to go streaming only as soon as possible. They want the switchoff date to be earlier, not later.

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
 

Because I get my information from the industry rather than limiting my research to the perspective of a right wing newspaper with an agenda.

Re: The future of television
 

You are not going to win an argument by rubbishing the source of links that confirm that a statement or position put forward is actually correct. That is a sure sign that the author disputing that point of view does not have any evidence to support the alternative they are advocating. This theme is splashed all over the media, including broadcast media, and it’s a fact that broadcasters don’t want to keep using DTT. It’s simply too expensive with the diminishing audience that is viewing in this way, and their view is that maintaining channels as well as streamers is an unnecessary expense.

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
 

It doesn't really matter what I say as you only take note of anything that suits your outlook and disregard the rest. That's been obvious to everyone for a while. I'll continue to deal with the facts rather than the musings of an obsessive crank.
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
 

And the BBC's went to Castle Transmission Services, which became Crown Castle, then National Grid Wireless, merging with NTL Broadcast to form Arqiva.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

Give your granny a streaming box to use on the broadband service she doesn't have, need or want.

Re: The future of television
 

Only one thing wrong with that statement - it states as a fact that the statement or position is actually correct, when in fact, no decision has been made, it's still under debate, so how can something that's not been decided yet be "actually correct"?

Re: The future of television
 

He's never going to accept that, he's only looking for confirmation. That's why there is no point in posting the links he requested. He doesn't seem to actually read these articles, merely filters them. Accepting anything that may tenuously support his theory and rejecting anything else. Just as he took the Coleago Report as confirmation of his theory but, industry publication, TVB Europe took the highlights of the report as its options for continued support and modernisation of DTT.
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
 

I asked you to link any information that contradicts my post, and you say “It really doesn’t matter what I say…..” I’m sorry, epsilon, but you don’t want a serious discussion, you are just playing games, and sadly, you are not the only one to do so.

Ah, I’m also clueless on the government’s position, am I? Are you now turning this on its head and arguing that they actually have a position? The government doesn’t have a clue what they are going to do about this, which I thought you had acknowledged yourself!

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
 

Actually, no, I’m looking for alternative scenarios that actually make sense in the light of what we can see happening with our own eyes. The government prevaricates (has no money); limited alternative options are postulated by Ofcom (one of which I am suggesting); Aquiva is looking at a way of modernising the system (which won’t solve the problem of diminishing profits as key viewers continue to migrate to streaming); the broadcasters want to broadcast via one, not two systems….all the evidence is there that DTT will not be available after 2035 without government intervention, which will cost money if they want to preserve the methods of the past.

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 ----------

I do that as well, but not on this forum. It’s much too hostile. I’m only sticking around because I started this and want to see it through.

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
 

The ‘problems’ you raise are non-problems, just as your ‘not enough electricity’ argument you rammed at me some years ago.

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 ----------

If you read my most recent posts above, you would not come to that conclusion, Mr K. I’m putting forward what I think and looking for stumbling blocks to seeing that through to fruition. I’ve not heard anything credible to counteract my view yet, that is all.

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
 

And you’re not grasping that just because broadcasters lobby for an outcome that suits them, it does not follow that they will get what they want. They are only one part of the equation, and moreover they are providing a service, and a service must align with the needs of service users.

Re: The future of television
 

Hmmm! if that was your interpretation of my post I can see why you are totally confused by what is happening in the industry. Yes, you made it absolutely clear that the government don't have the cash for compensation. My point was where did you get the idea that any compensation would be necessary? There isn't a contractual relationship with the infrastructure providers that would merit any sort of compensation in whatever scenario you have imagined. In short, Arqiva is a commercial operator operating a private business. It isn't a government contractor likely to seek compensation.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

A red herring. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate obfuscation or just your lack of understanding of how things work. The government doesn't need any money, they don't fund any of this, the commercial operators do.

Surely Arqiva (which is the correct spelling) know their business better than you do. If they think it is worth modernising, then surely it is.

Investment that would already have been forthcoming if the government stopped sitting on their hands and came up with an actual plan for the future of PSBs and broadcasting in general.
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.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on your views? Not looking for confirmation? the evidence from many years of your posts demonstrates otherwise.

---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

Evangelising his opinion is understandable if pointless, especially as he seems to be a lone voice. It's the Violet Elizabeth tantrums when people don't agree with him that really annoy me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXiZHXkG-ac

Re: The future of television
 

I am grasping that, Chris, but which part of that equation will persuade broadcasters not to pursue their preferred strategy? In my view, only the government can do that.

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
 

Absolutely, yes. There are many parts of the equation, but let’s look at why I have reached the conclusion I have.

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
 

As epsilon posted at 22:58 yesterday

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
 

Yes, Hugh, but they were both terrestrial systems offering TV channels, so it was a no brainer.


What we have here is two completely different systems.

Re: The future of television
 

You haven’t been paying attention (as per).

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
 

Aha! but he didn't get the confirmation he seeks (but denies seeking) from that. So he filtered the whole thing out of his analysis (whilst simultaneously claiming not to do that). A good demonstration really of how he actually analyses possible future outcomes. Useful to compare this with what he claims to be doing.

---------- Post added at 00:57 ---------- Previous post was at 00:44 ----------

I know you have filtered out the fact that Freely, the IP version of Freeview, delivers DVB channels over IP along with the same apps currently available on Freeview (iplayer, itvx etc). It doesn't fit in with your personal view of what could happen, which you refer to as the "facts". So, well, they aren't really completely different systems are they?
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 ----------

Oh don't go there, they don't fit into his theory so are just considered to be a momentary blip and will die out completely to bring about his on demand / streaming dream.

Re: The future of television
 

What confirmation? I’m trying to have a conversation here. Why must you be so argumentative and snide in your comments? You made a perfectly reasonable comparison with 405 line and analogue switch offs. I was simply making the point that DTT and IPTV are completely different because the latter was on demand rather than channel based. Previous big changes have not enabled such revolutionary change to the method by which broadcasters present their content. As for ‘filtering out of my analysis’, I did no such thing. I do not spend all day and night on Cable Forum and I had not had an opportunity to respond to your post - I hadn’t ignored it.

If that’s what you meant by ‘filtering’, again, no. This is not about the availability of alternative means of scheduled channel delivery, it is about the changeover to on demand, which broadcasters find cheaper and easier to manage for reasons I have given on multiple occasions. THAT is the point, not ‘Is there an alternative method of delivery over the airwaves?’. As I said earlier, with diminishing audiences watching our traditional channels, the broadcasters are unwilling to continue to plough money into it.

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.

This withering comment was about the FAST channels. I have already (how many times?) explained that these channels are run on the cheap and they simply don’t incur the same costs as the big five. You’ve only got to compare the content with the traditional channels to see that.

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.

Well, epsilon, with the bullying and hectoring way you guys react to opinions different from your own, is it any wonder that others don’t stick their heads above the parapet? I know for a fact that some people do agree with me, but they won’t say so on here, which is a shame. These are really interesting times, and people would expect to see intelligent debate on these issues, particularly on a forum like this.

---------- Post added at 17:03 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

I agree, Richard, because there do seem to be a lot of people who like to ‘channel hop’ and just watch what comes up that happens to interest them.

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 ----------

I don’t think you are grasping what I’m saying here. You can make as good a case as you like on how the existing DTT channels could be replicated in as many ways as you would want, but you have completely ignored or missed my point.

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
 

Exactly, it didn't give you any. :D


The broadcasters have already shown their hand and their vision of an IPTV future. It is Freely, where broadcast channels continue to use DVB but delivered over IP rather than the transmitter network. The "on demand" exclusive version is entirely your own invention.

Again, the broadcasters have already demonstrated their potential replacement for Freeview, it is Freely with, oh you know.. regular linear channels.

Again, not what has happened with other forms of simulcasting.

CNN operate their normal service as a FAST channel, as do most other news channels NHK World, France 24, DW etc. Same for your right wing buddies at Talk TV, OAN, Newsmax etc. You can't just pick a subset of cheap reality / old tv shows etc presented without continuity and use that to represent FAST channels as a whole.

Again, as can be seen with Freely, they are continuing to broadcast linear channels and still using DVB but over IP. I don't expect this to get past your filter as it doesn't give you confirmation of your dream scenario.

Yeah, cry me a river! Not agreeing with you isn't the same as bullying and hectoring. Don't play the sympathy card just because things aren't going your way.

Another reminder needed here that Freely, the DTT "replacement", carries linear channels using DVB over IP. Filter Alert!!!

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
 

You are on a different planet, Andrew. I’m on planet Earth by the way, hi!

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
 

Thanks for visiting us. You may return to Mars now.

Broadcasters have done this voluntarily. If on-demand only was their preferred option, why have they contributed linear channels to Freely? No one's forcing them. Could it be that a large number of people still want to consume content this way.

Broadcasters will do what their audiences prefer or government and regulators mandate. The proliferation of FAST channels when a wide range of streaming services exist show they're not going away anytime soon.

Re: The future of television
 

You do talk a lot of nonsense. Freely has introduced parallel DVB services over IP. These services are generally in HD, even when the over-the-air versions are sometimes in SD due to lack of capacity on the legacy multiplexes.
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
 

:D

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
 

Not for new programming no, some "existing franchises and their future series" on a non exclusive basis through their term on Sky Atlantic but that's it , they have a non exclusive HBO Max app bundle agreement

Re: The future of television
 

Your vision of the future only works if broadcasters decide to continue to support so-called linear or live TV in the future. I really don't care personally whether they do or don't but I've told you what I think.

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 ----------

Simply because they are still broadcasting live channels at the present time.
The broadcasters have their minds set on broadcasting all non-live broadcasting on demand, and live broadcasting will be shown as it is presently on NOW and other streaming platforms.

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
 

LOL

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1756390046

Re: The future of television
 

You are so convincing, Chris [COUGH]