Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36193260)

Nearing completion ? not really.

Openreach have plans to make fttp available to 80% of UK premises by the end of 2026, and (almost) the rest by the 2030.

Even then, with fttp, you can still get issues watching TV over BB, I have it and the sky-go streams can stutter or freeze for a few seconds.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193259)

How to argue like an Old Boy:

1. Read an Ofcom report. Get excited at Ofcom’s description of ‘The Problem’.
2. Read right below Ofcom’s description of the problem, three possible solutions, most of which don’t involve switching off DTT.
3. Ignore Ofcom’s potential solutions because they don’t agree with you.
4. Endlessly post descriptions of the problem as if you’re the only person who knows what it is, and then keep pushing your ideas as if you’re the only person who who’s thought it through.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36193257)

The traditional methods of broadcasting are actually cheaper than streaming to mass audiences.

Therefore, when I asked a BBC technologist why they are going to move over to streaming their content, he said that 'It's pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using'.

This leads me to believe that broadcasters will carry on using the traditional methods for as long as possible, though this will be impacted by having to sign new contracts, which may not be prudent long term.

Re: Government carbon footprint worries. In a sense, maybe it would be better to ban streaming for those able to broadcast via another methods and continue as we are??

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193265)

Which brings us (once again) to the fact that the advertising revenue from reaching the eyeballs on DTT outweighs the costs of broadcasting on it. Because to a rights holder the additional cost of the DTT platform is peanuts by comparison for the multi-billion point television industry.

Rational capitalists don’t voluntarily cannibalise their revenue streams and hand advantages to their competitors. Hence everyone keeps a far higher volume of content, by hour of broadcast, on DTT above the contractual minimum for PSBs.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193266)

But that ignores the fact that advertising is also carried on IP systems, and that those advertisements are non skippable to boot.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193265)

Which brings us (once again) to the fact that the advertising revenue from reaching the eyeballs on DTT outweighs the costs of broadcasting on it. Because to a rights holder the additional cost of the DTT platform is peanuts by comparison for the multi-billion point television industry.

Rational capitalists don’t voluntarily cannibalise their revenue streams and hand advantages to their competitors. Hence everyone keeps a far higher volume of content, by hour of broadcast, on DTT above the contractual minimum for PSBs.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193267)

Yes, OB.

But the viewers aren’t all on IP based systems for a multitude of reasons, explained many times over. Viewers who actually have mechanisms to use on demand - and have done for twenty years - still watch linear television as broadcast. Including over DTT.

That’s the square that cannot be circled without big bad government intervention making a decision unpopular to the masses.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193271)

So we have no evidence of the costs merely the speculation that they are “significant”.

1) a figure in the small hundreds of thousands of pounds.
2) the infrastructure already exists - therefore the only relevant costs are maintenance.
3) do Ofcom do specific DTT only licences or are these the same for all broadcast platforms?
4) always enjoy the use of “may”. Presumably like 2 these mechanisms already exist.
5) not known

Until these unknown costs can be demonstrated to be higher than the revenue generated there’s no basis for the claim broadcasters will withdraw. You also ignore that the viewers forced to IP may not seamlessly transfer to watching the same content from the same provider given the plethora of new options that will be available. That’s a risk to the revenue stream that broadcasters on DTT lose prominence in millions of homes, and lose the rationale for any such prominence on IP based platforms.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193262)

May I remind you that 2030 is a mere five years away, so I stand by my comment that broadband rollout is nearing completion.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193272)

The broadcasters themselves don’t see it that way. And it is the broadcasters who are talking about the tipping point and the fact that running two systems side by side is uneconomic.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36193262)

May I remind you that 2030 is a mere five years away, so I stand by my comment that broadband rollout is nearing completion.

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------



I am well aware of Ofcom’s reference to ‘possible solutions’. They’ve been wrong before. Remember their rubbishing of Project Kangaroo?

I’m concentrating on what the broadcasting industry is doing and the fact the continuing to run two systems is unnecessarily costly for them.

Your constant demeaning of things people write which you don’t agree with does not enhance your reputation, Chris. You have failed to address the points I have made in that post.This was a discussion forum last time I looked, but it seems that anyone who disagrees with your perspective is an idiot according to you.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------



The conclusion you came to (highlighted in bold) does not really add up, Richard. You asked ‘why were they going to move over to streaming their content’, to which they replied ‘it’s pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using.’

So given that they are moving to streaming, how does that fit with the rest of the statement, which indicates that they don’t envisage people sticking with DTT in sufficient numbers, and your conclusion that this means they will carry on with traditional methods for as long as possible?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193277)

Wait, hang on …



Old Boy is an AI :Yikes:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36193273)

You can stand by it all you want, its still wrong (as usual). Five years is not "nearing completion". :sleep:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36193276)