Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Most broadcasters are not "making the change to demand/streaming services", they are offering on demand access to shows already broadcast on linear TV for those who miss them.

In a very small number of cases broadcasters like Sky also run some shows on demand first in order to help raise awareness of their boxset service.

BBC Three is a case all of its own, replicated by no other UK broadcasters, and forced on the BBC by funding cuts.

As for your final line, you must know that's pure BS.

As I said to you weeks ago, linear broadcasting is cheaper for the broadcasters than investing in the kit needed to stream or offer on demand access to everyone at the same time.

There is no foreseeable credible businesses case under which they'd move from fixed costs of broadcasting their output via DTT / DSAT to pumping it all out from hugely expensive data centres.

When you get a grip of the costs associated with doing this you'll understand why your central premise is so wrong.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Err, I think he is genuinely at times getting confused, nothing more than that.

Tv used to be simple, here are the main changes:

1: All tv channels were broadcast over the air, received by an aerial and all tv shows were live.
2: All tv channels were broadcast over the air, received by an aerial and some tv shows were live, some not.
3: Some tv channels were broadcast over the air, some through satellite systems and some through cable systems. Some shows were live, some were not.
4. Some tv channels were broadcast over the air, some through satellite systems and some through cable systems. Some shows were live, some were not. Some shows were available live (or not) via on demand systems on cable and satellite.
5. Some tv channels were broadcast over the air, some through satellite systems and some through cable systems. Some tv channels were streamed over the internet. Some shows were live, some were not. Some shows were available live (or not) via on demand systems on cable and satellite or on the internet.

etc etc and I haven't even mentioned mobile.

The point I am trying to make is tv used to be simple. Now its complicated. I believe it will go full circle and be simple again as far as the viewer is concerned. But the underlying nuts and bolts of how we get tv will be far more complicated than even today.

I do think Old Boy should be given a little, just a little, bit of slack if he gets confused by different terminology to discuss what is an increasingly ever complicated subject.

I happen to think this is the best discussion thread on this forum! Much better than "coming soon" which never comes....

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Though arguably BT and TalkTalk's YouView is already the simplification you talk of - one EPG with streamed channels sitting alongside DTT and both alongside paid and free catch-up and VOD.

And with circa 3m customers between them it's clear the platform has some merits.

I have to say, I think he deliberately jumps between the terms knowing that he's using them wrong, in order to distance himself from his original and now abandoned claims.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

In some cases its cheaper yes, especially Freeview. But take cable, as an example, which as a reminder is two-way technology, not one-way like satellite mostly is.

Virgin Media currently, at least in my area, have 48 transport streams or channels available.

Most of these streams can carry several tv channels each, or broadband data as well as some TV/EPG data.

That 48 streams/channels are being "broadcast" into every home in East London that has cable irrelevant of whether the houses are watching all the channels or not. Obviously, no single household is simultaneously watching hundreds of linear tv channels, watching on demand shows and using the internet all at the same tv.

Probably each household at a maximum needs a dozen or so channels, say 20 if you're being very generous and allowing for future 4k services. So, there's at least almost 30 channels of bandwidth being wasted. That's not cheap and it isn't efficient.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes. Cable's different. That's why I didn't include it and said "DTT / DSAT".

Question is, would building out a VoD system to cope with all the simultaneous requests for EastEnders, the Champions League Final, Doctor Who etc be cheaper for Virgin - and the channels who they pass some of the costs on to - than the currently seemingly inefficient method?

I don't know the answer which, again is why I didn't include cable, but if it's not cheaper why would Virgin make that switch? And if it is, can they persuade enough of their users that they want to watch shows as VOD rather than as linear streams?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

No, I'm talking about something, which as yet, doesn't exist. Which is real intelligent tv that merges linear and on demand together.

But as a sidenote, I did lobby the politicians years ago when they were talking about building a digital terrestrial network and urged them to ditch that idea in favour a nationwide fibre optic network instead.

I basically wanted a open cable network, where you could use your own equipment and which used open standards. So, in that respect it would've been similar to what freeview and youview is today.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------

I think watching the main shows like Eastenders on linear channels is going to go on for a long time. And I said before in this thread, perhaps a handful of main terrestrial channels will survive.

I think the imminent threat from on demand services is to the hundreds of pay tv channels that are not on Freeview and aren't widely available beyond Sky and VM. That will be the first battleground.

Spiderplant is the person who knows the best about VM's tv network. Perhaps he may see this thread and chip in. I cannot say with certainty whether it would be cheaper or not for VM to move away from providing masses of linear channels to using mainly on demand services instead.

But as I have said earlier in this thread, you had satellite and cable tv that started to cannibalise the main channels. And now with on demand services like iplayer and netflix, they're starting to erode the viewership of the pay tv channels.

Something has to give somewhere. There cannot all be hundreds of linear channels all happily going about their business and Netflix, Amazon etc all making money too. There has to be casualties.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

:waving:
With a load of paid-for coax already in the ground, providing shared broadcast services is effectively 'free', compared with the considerable expense of putting in switching equipment.

But nobody would build an HFC network from scratch these data. With a new-build fibre network, I'm not sure.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

.....hello....

No, neither am I. And its interesting that VM are doing FTTP now with some of their new build areas.

One more question, Spiderplant, in a all fibre world (yes, I know its not), would there be any need for all the regional headends? Couldn't everything just be pumped from the centre?

Malone is out for serious cost savings for VM and I'm curious as to where he'll get them.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

TBH, I doubt it will be a case of pay a subscription or watch ads. I suspect that (with their headline shows like Orange is the new black) it will be a case of pay a subscription AND watch ads, especially when their subscribers numbers level out (as will happen at some point).

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Again not my area of expertise, but it isn't just a case of "pumping stuff out". You also need to get data back in from millions of devices and coalesce it. The speed of light is often a limiting factor in these things - at long distances the round-trip times get too long for the protocols to work properly. Broadcast TV is already mostly centralised.

Anyway, don't hold your breath. VM are currently building a few new hubsites.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

An interesting point of view set out here. Notice the reference to linear TV channels (sorry, couldn't resist!). :D

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...-distribution/

The type of pay-TV that is currently available in most markets will be obsolete in less than 10 years. Subscribers will no longer pay for large bundles of TV channels that offer the same fare as any OTT video catalogue (at often a much higher price).

For non-live pay-TV the go-to service will be a VOD catalogue. We will see more of the sort of Netflixes being created: some with a wide appeal and some with a thematic focus.

Only live TV channels can survive in this Pay TV environment as they can offer some type of exclusivity: ie access to a live event. This will be particularly true for sports. While pay-TV channels around movies, for instance, will decline, we will see more channels that are covering a certain sport. It will also be true for some form of thematic channels where the audience is willing to hand over the ‘programme director’ role to the channel. It entrusts the channel with the power to make the right choice in what it broadcasts; here again it is important to have a professional team to select the content, prepare it and put into context. Content must be current and relevant and somewhat exclusive. This will also enable such channels to charge subscription fees – and if the target audience is of critical mass, platforms will be happy to carry it.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Fair point as far as it goes, I agree that the days of low-value channels leaching subs off larger, more successful ones via bundling are limited. I'd go so far as to say that the practice has only survived for as long as it has because Sky has been very keen to lock as much telly as possible behind its paywall, and because there has historically been a shortage of spot-beam capacity for free-to-air sat broadcast to the UK, which causes rights issues for some content.

But I think you may be underestimating the number of broadcast linear channels that *aren't* pay-tv. A brief look at the Freeview or Freesat EPG will give you an idea.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Yes, I agree with your first paragraph.

On the second, I think it is the non Pay TV channels that will have the most problems as audiences drift away because they are so reliant on income from commercials. That's a lot of channels at risk.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

This is Liberty Global's view of the future. Five different scenarios are set out. It would be interesting to hear the comments of Forum members on this, and which (if any) of these scenarios you think are most likely to happen.

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/54851...ionary-change/

Re: The future for linear TV channels