Re: The future of television
 

I'm going to call it now - linear television will survive longer than the Commonwealth Games.

Re: The future of television
 

You’re not likening the Friendly Games™ to a lettuce now, shurley?

Re: The future of television
 

How do you define ‘linear television’, jfman? :naughty::rofl:

Re: The future of television
 

Everyone knows I know what it is except you, OB.

Re: The future of television
 

jf’s definition

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...r#post36141950

Your definition

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1615

Re: The future of television
 

[QUOTE=Hugh;36179886]jf’s definition

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...r#post36141950 /QUOTE]

Thank you for that, in which case I agree with him, because that will include FAST channels.

---------- Post added at 18:00 ---------- Previous post was at 17:58 ----------

Not a very helpful response, jfman, but I guess that's to be expected.

Just as well we have Hugh....:erm:

Re: The future of television
 

Tv is nice I know, but it's mostly repeats or crap, streamed or otherwise.
Don't you think we all ought to worry more about the future of the NHS? :confused:

Re: The future of television
 

We are all capable of worrying about more than one thing at a time, Mr K.

Re: The future of television
 

Since when has Linear TV "often" been described as 'live TV' ?

Live TV is broadcasting an event as it happens, which is a small fraction of Linear TV.

Re: The future of television
 

At least 20 years.

Re: The future of television
 

The front of a STB doesn't verify the definition of a broadcast linear TV.

Live is literally broadcasting as it happens. Linear is literally the daily channels broadcasting shows for people to watch at a set time. Live TV is part of that but only a little. Like sporting events etc.

Re: The future of television
 

Paul asked how long the term had been used to describe linear TV. I provided evidence that it is at least 20 years.

A search of this forum finds many uses of "live TV" from 2003, whereas the first use of "linear TV" was in 2007.

Re: The future of television
 

I think the confusion lies in the fact that ‘live TV’ has long been a term used by users of ‘+’ type services, (Sky/Freeview/VM) to distinguish between watching a channel as-broadcast or catching up because you paused it to answer the door. It has much more recently arisen in this discussion as a way of trying to distinguish between a linear broadcast channel and an on-demand stream. The two uses are subtly different, but different enough to cause confusion.

Re: The future of television
 

Actually, I asked how long has it has "often" been described as Live TV.

I asked around my family (and friends) and everyone defined Live TV as what you would expect, broadcast of an event as its happening, for example, a Football Match.

They consider the rest to be "Terrestrial TV" or "Streaming (TV)".
Granted, no one (I know) calls it Linear TV, but that wasnt the point, the point is they have never called it "Live TV".

Before streaming was a thing, it was just TV, and Live TV.

Re: The future of television
 

We spend far too much time agonising over what a ‘linear channel’ is. We all know it is scheduled TV, which includes live streams, but over time the media has used the phrase very loosely to mean our conventional TV channels as shown on our EPGs.

Given the title of this thread, we need to be less picky about these terms and the pedantic detail as demonstrated in so many posts and actually debate how we see TV changing over the years.

Much now depends on the government’s attitude to switching off the transmitter signals in favour of IPTV, which they may have trouble resisting, given the international pressure to make more bandwidth available for 5G, the cost to broadcasters in paying out for conventional broadcasting over the transmitters when a cheaper alternative is available, etc.

Then, if IPTV becomes the means of broadcasting TV, there is the question of (a) whether audiences will choose ‘on demand’ over the listed channels and (b) whether the broadcasters themselves actually want to spend more than they need to so that people are given that option.

We will see, but I think I know where this will end.