Re: The future of television
 

It's almost as if giving viewers a choice was good business...

Re: The future of television
 

Well, as I have said before, it’s the broadcasters themselves who want IPTV only. I’m not saying whether that’s a good or bad thing for viewers, but I do see where the broadcasters are coming from.

Re: The future of television
 

Why do you believe a switch to 100% IP delivery will mean the end of linear schedules?

Re: The future of television
 

Because maintaining linear channels is an extra cost to the broadcasters and new original content now tends to go to the streamers. A lot of work goes into assembling the schedules, working out timings and slotting in advertisements. It’s far easier just to upload to an on demand system and not worry about time constraints and filling in blank spaces. The broadcasters themselves say they don’t want to maintain two systems as it is added cost.

The FAST channels will continue if the demand is there. They are cheap and easy to assemble, the content is cheap and practically everything is second hand material. Some of our traditional channels may still exist as streaming channels if the government requires it.

Re: The future of television
 

The FAST channels are linear channels and they exist because the demand is there. All your observations have merit but your conclusions don’t fit your observations - you can see as well as I can that FAST channels came out of nowhere to occupy a space created for on-demand streaming because there is a demand even amongst people who are comfortable with IP delivered television for a pre-determined linear stream.

Once you accept the logic of meeting market demand for a linear scedule, you also accept the same logic that goes with everything else in a competitive marketplace - your offering must be more compelling than your competitor’s. The additional effort required - accurate scheduling of programmes and advertisements, deciding what shows to place where in order to draw in and hold on to an audience - becomes marketing spend that pays a return. Though I also think you’re over-stating how difficult it is for an established professional TV channel with its own play-out suite to actually do all that stuff.

Aside from all that, as long as it is necessary to maintain legacy delivery networks, whether cable, terrestrial, satellite or some combination of those, linear schedules will have to continue to exist because that’s the only way to deliver TV over those networks. I still think your imagined timetable for final shut-off of those networks is wildly optimistic.

Re: The future of television
 

I am only saying what the broadcasters want, Chris, and I am pretty confident they will get their way. I have already acknowledged that the FAST channels are a different case altogether, because they rely mainly on old cheap material.

The main channels in this country are becoming too expensive to run when viewed against the cost of new material, the reducing audience share and the amount of money the advertisers are willing to pay for their ads to appear. Their most valuable audiences are migrating to streaming, and that’s where the advertisers will go.

You have not commented on the channels that are leaving in favour of streaming, but you are giving undue weight to those few channels that have returned. If you recall, for example, I said from the get-go that it was too early for BBC3 to go streaming only, and sure as eggs is eggs, the channel returned. That was not unexpected. Similarly, the return of those children’s channels to Sky reflected the fact that they could profit from Sky subscribers who had were not yet able to access streaming services through their subscriptions.

We are never going to agree on this and in the end one of us will be proved right. Only ten more years to go and all will be clear.

Re: The future of television
 

The loss of traditional channels in favour of the move to streaming continues. New streaming channels (FAST channels) are being established all the time. It will be interesting to see how popular the FAST channels will turn out to be.

Personally, I don’t think that any of them will turn out to be big players in the overall TV market in the long run. But at this stage, it’s all to play for.

https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/sky-contin...n-the-horizon/

[EXTRACT]

Over 20 channels drop off Sky satellite, with more to come this week.

Some HD channels have closed, incentivising viewers to move to Sky Stream for better picture quality

Decline in services covered by Sky subscription, without reduction in cost

On Sky Stream, traditional channels losses are offset by growth of streaming-only linear channels.

Re: The future of television
 

20 different businesses, all delivering the same crap content to your 80 inch TV (with shit sound), all hoping to take your money in whatever way possible whilst reducing their overheads

And they call it entertainment :D

Re: The future of television
 

https://www.cordbusters.co.uk/sky-st...an-end-sooner/

[EXTRACT]

Freeview and Freesat could be switched off by 2034 – and new research from Sky claims only 330,000 households would be left behind.

That’s the headline finding from a major study published this week, and it’s far more optimistic than the government’s previous estimate of 1.8 million households still needing help by 2035.

But there’s a big “if” attached: it only works if the government announces a clear timeline around 2027, giving people seven years to prepare, and invests properly in helping vulnerable groups get online

The broadcasters are becoming increasingly concerned about the cost of maintaining the existing broadcast system and this I believe will decide the date on which the transmitters are switched off for TV broadcasting. My bets are on 2024 as being the year for the switch-off. Satellite broadcasting will already have been run down or terminated by then.

There is still no news on converting channels to streaming on demand at this point, but I think that will happen at the same time. There is not really any point in doing both, but of course there are differing views on that.

Re: The future of television
 

I would not bet much on that year. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Major competitor of Freeview releases sponsored survey which shows Freeview could be switched off early…

Re: The future of television
 

Broadcasters are pushing for an on demand streaming future because scheduled TV is more expensive and difficult to run, and advertisers are preferring a more targeted approach for their advertising, which is more easily achieved via on demand.

Live broadcasts will, of course, continue in the same way that Amazon and TNT broadcast football.

While it is still possible that the government will step in, I think the realisation that broadcasters would want compensation for bearing these unnecessary costs will seal the fate of the traditional channels. As the article points out, most of the population is now connected to the internet and if there is a campaign to publicise the forthcoming switch-off, there will be very few people left without it by 2034.

Re: The future of television
 

This is an assertion about the beliefs of a third party - as you (obviously) don’t have the power to speak for ‘broadcasters’, it’s polite for you to link to a source for the motives you’re imputing here.

As per, your predictions are based upon suppositions that are generated by wishful thinking…

Re: The future of television
 

If our internet went down, her indoors can still watch her crap on freeview through the aerial.

There's far too much now relies on a constant uninterrupted internet connection, and there are no guarantees you'll get one

Re: The future of television
 

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...d-outages.html

Re: The future of television
 

Those predictions seem to becoming more certain all the time, but we won’t know it until we see it.

As for speaking for the broadcasters, don’t be daft. I am merely pointing out what has been widely reported.

Re: The future of television
 

From that Cordbuster's article, it will be interesting to see what this report says.

Re: The future of television
 

Indeed. If they are actually capable of problem solving.

Re: The future of television
 

Humax have released their AuraEZ 4K Recorder.

https://humaxdirect.co.uk/products/h...reely-recorder

It states it can record Freely
However, it then seems to contradict this further down.

---------- Post added at 04:42 ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 ----------

Ok, so in the FAQ it says ;

If its Live TV via an aerial then its surely not Freely, so this seems to be a bit of a con.

Re: The future of television
 

Very misleading isn't it? It should be called something like Freeview PVR with Freely receiver.

Re: The future of television
 

Freely is a hybrid system with some channels available exclusively via an aerial, others available as streamed DVB with some channels available via both methods. Freely has its own EPG with different channel numbers to Freeview. It's not a con but it is extremely confusing.

Re: The future of television
 

I wouldn’t have thought so. Most people just switch on the TV and select their channel from the EPG. They don’t care how they receive them.

Re: The future of television
 

They might do for sport, if streamed 'live' action is way behind freeview coverage.

Re: The future of television
 

Except that channel selection is not the part that is confusing. The confusion is that Freely via an aerial isn't the same as Freeview. It does confuse people that broadcast DTT is now carried on 2 different platforms which don't share channel numbers if they expect DTT to have a single, uniform, EPG. I suppose though that channel selection could be confusing to viewers if they have Freely in one room and Freeview in another. Not to mention the possibility of even more diverse channel numbers if they own a third tv which has Freeview Play with CLM.

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------

Possibly something they are trying to mitigate by using a variant of DVB for streamed Freely. Even Freeview has encoding / decoding delay. The challenge is to match them. In the end it will come down to how powerful the processors are in the TV. With manufacturers cutting costs (e.g. Sony TVs now being manufactured by TCL) it probably isn't something that will happen soon.

Re: The future of television
 

Interesting, I have not seen that mentioned anywhere before.
Freely has always been positioned as internet based, thanks for the info.

Re: The future of television
 

Its USP as I understood it was that it was supposed to put FAST (linear streaming) channels into the same EPG as the traditional broadcast channels, and that it would let you select and play as-broadcast stuff from all the main public service broadcasters even if you’re using an internet connection rather than an aerial to feed your Freely box or TV. We don’t have an aerial or a dish (or VM) and at present without Freely we have to go to each app separately to see what’s presently being broadcast. Freely should remove that requirement. But I can see why PVR functionality is a genie the broadcasters would rather put back in the lamp if they can, so I’m not surprised if any PVR functionality a Freely box ships with is restricted to what it receives via an aerial.

Prior to launch, the PSB channels were still refusing to relinquish the need to login in order to access anything they were delivering over IP rather than terrestrial broadcast. I don’t know if they eventually relented, but it’s likely that even if you want to access BBC1, ITV etc via a unified EPG, using only an internet connection, you won’t be able to do so without first setting everything up in your Freely device with individual user names and passwords for BBC, ITV, C4 and C5.

Re: The future of television
 

There's also the possibility that the "over the air" EPG data carries CRID data necessary to support recordings but the online EPGs do not.

Re: The future of television
 

That makes sense.

Re: The future of television
 

'sigh' things were so much easier with a VCR . . . but TV companies didn't make much money from them :D

Re: The future of television
 

Blockbuster and Radio Rentals did though. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

yes, that's true . . where are they now?

Technology is putting all the money into the same few pockets :D

Re: The future of television
 

https://www.advanced-television.com/...tt-switch-off/

[EXTRACT]

The UK’s main TV, radio and cellular mast operator and transmission company, Arqiva, has been plunged into financial uncertainty amid uncertainty over a looming digital switchover.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2026...lly-worthless/

Under current legislation, digital terrestrial TV via Freeview is guaranteed until at least 2034. However, broadcasters have argued that maintaining energy-intensive terrestrial transmission alongside streaming distribution is increasingly costly as audiences migrate online.

Re: The future of television
 

The country should have standardised on a free-to-view satellite based delivery system when we did the digital switchover. Vested interests (Arqiva) and snobbery (I don’t want a Sky dish on my house) undoubtedly helped prevent it.

Public service broadcasts are already available over IP, receivable anywhere an end-user has sufficient bandwidth. But it will be some time before the national internet capacity is sufficient for 30 million homes to be streaming possibly multiple channels in HD or UHD simultaneously, even if we get close to 100% super fast broadband coverage of UK homes. As we didn’t settle on satellite as the provider of the universal service when we could have, we will undoubtedly see the government having to bung Arqiva some dough to keep their transmitters going.