Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194687)

OK, let’s clarify what I am actually saying in terms of my prediction.

Firstly, I originally concluded that (conventional) TV channels would cease to be, in favour of streaming. This appeared to be a logical step for the industry. As more and more content was being taken up by the streamers, it was clear that the leftovers would go to the TV channels, thus devaluing their content. As content deteriorated in quality and the channels relied more and more on archive material, most of the audience sought after by advertisers would migrate to the streamers. Over time, our conventional TV channels would close down, eventually leading to total migration of content to the streamers. I said all this would happen within 20 years.

Fast forward 10 years to the present day, and the streamers have proliferated. We have already lost some of our popular channels, such as Disney and FX. The broadcasters are emphasising ‘Digital First’ strategies to encourage viewers to use the streamers instead of the channels. Sky is no longer promoting satellite TV (Sky Q is being replaced in these promotions by Sky Stream and Sky Glass, which both are focussed primarily on streaming).

Cable is going the same way, and the writing on the wall for TiVo and 360 boxes is clear. Both boxes will be superseded by Virgin Flex eventually as the company seeks to put most of its efforts into broadband.

One thing that I did not expect is the recent explosion of streaming channels, first seen on Pluto. I think these may turn out to be a five minute wonder, because there is no publicly available schedule, no means of recording, and drama series are difficult to follow. I do acknowledge, however, that the lack of advance scheduling information could be remedied and that the difficulty in following drama series on a streaming channel can be overcome by resorting to the ‘on demand’ alternative, as provided by Pluto. But this is also evidence that the on demand system is superior to the streaming channels, and people will come to see this.

Some say that scheduled TV for the PSB channels could continue on IP, which is true, but the dwindling audiences that are already in evidence will eventually render this as financially unviable. The existence of the streaming channels do not prove that the bigger operators, with their much bigger budgets and overheads, will find this method at all worthwhile. The streaming channels phenomenon is entirely dependent on archive material and ‘YouTube’ style content.

I very much welcome the recent tendency for free streaming and reduced cost streaming with advertisements. This is quite different from how things appeared 10 years ago, when the big players were only offering subscription based alternatives to broadcast channels. Indeed, this was seen at the time to be a big draw because at last, we were free of unwanted advertising. The CEO of Netflix was quoted as saying that Netflix would never entertain advertisements. However, with the proliferation of new streamers all competing with one another, income generation reduced, and advertising options became attractive. I view this as a good thing, because it makes access to good streaming content more inclusive.

Moving on to the more recent debate on here, Ofcom is currently reviewing the whole scenario we are now facing, and PSB broadcasting is an important aspect of their review.

Ofcom’s own ‘realistic trajectory’ is as follows:

Between now and 2027: Hybrid systems (live channels over IP + streamers). Players still depend on live feeds for news/sports.

2027 - 2032: Gradual decline in channel-based delivery. Some niche or low-rating channels may be dropped entirely in favour of VOD.

2032+: Possible phase-out of the ‘channel’ concept altogether for many broadcasters except possibly for news and sports events.

That’s what Ofcom thinks, but I would go further. I think that Sky will stop using its transponders when existing satellite contracts run out and it will cease providing signals to its Sky Q boxes. Virgin will probably do the same around that time. Although a reduced number of channels appear on Sky Stream, Sky Glass and Virgin Flex, migration to the service and their emphasis on streaming is likely to lead to a marked decline in the number of these viewers watching the broadcast channels. That will reduce advertising income still further for the broadcast channels, rendering the terrestrial medium even more unattractive.

The support for live channels over IP seems to rely on arguments about the continuing need for live channels dedicated to news, sports and other live events (even though there is no reason why these cannot be accommodated on a streamer - eg premier football matches on Amazon); older viewers rely heavily on scheduled TV; and some people just like the positive experience of ‘channel hopping’. However, it should be noted that some manufacturers are working on “senior-friendly” modes for digital navigation, which I believe are easily addressed. As for ‘channel hopping’ what’s wrong with content hopping?

I don’t dispute that there may be government intervention, but I believe that if there were consultations with the broadcasters about leaving at least a basic live TV service going, the government would be expected to cough up. Given that the government is strapped for cash, how likely do you think this will be?

I will leave it there for the time being, but I hope that makes my position clear. While there are other possible outcomes to this, I think that the views of the TV industry and the cost of keeping existing terrestrial infrastructure going will be the big influencers in what is decided in the end. What the viewer wants is a secondary consideration, not the determinant, as some would have it.

That is my prediction, overlaid with some supporting facts, nothing more. Other views are available.

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36194695)

So a lot of waffle that sidesteps the question, which was to explain how your comment "the reality is..." took other options into consideration...
A simple question. I didn't ask or want you to regurgitate your beliefs. Oh well...

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194701)

Nothing new there at all.

What you believe has been clear for donkeys years, you repeat it ad nauseam every time you find a new link to a random digital marketing agency blogging on the subject. What would clarify things would be engagement with the broader topic, i.e. the alternative views epsilon has been trying to get you to engage with for the past several days.

But not only do you not engage with other possible scenarios, you misrepresent evidence supposedly in favour of your own position. Ofcom’s ’realistic trajectory’ cannot possibly be a total phase out of linear broadcast channels from 2032 when 2 of the 3 possible future pathways it has proposed, include keeping public service broadcasts on DTT. Funny how the one that aligns with your personal TV viewing habits is the one you think Ofcom sees as ‘realistic’. Confirmation bias, much?

Once again, however, the ‘tell’ that you somehow still don’t fully grasp the concepts at play here is that you seem to have totally made up the idea that Ofcom possibly sees a linear broadcast role for only news and sports channels. First of all: no, it doesn’t. The minimal DTT ‘nightlight’ service it postulates as one of its 3 future pathways would still carry the basic public service broadcasts channels. But, mainly, you seem to think retaining traditional scheduled channels for sport and news has something to do with the fact that these events happen regularly in any case and people want to engage with them ‘live.’

If you bother to read what Ofcom is actually saying, however, you would know that major peak viewing events - cultural events like royal weddings, Eurovision and major sporting fixtures - play absolute havoc with broadband networks. There is a long discussion about what demand peaks do to broadband networks on page 39 of the Ofcom report. Note in particular that Ofcom does not believe any existing IP-based technology can currently cope with an entirely IP based TV service for this reason, and it cannot predict what technologies might appear and solve that problem within the next 10 years.

So while Ofcom acknowledges a fully IP-based future for British TV as one of a range of possibilities from 2032 onwards, there is simply no way on earth you can conclude it is what they see as the ‘realistic trajectory’ when this one, of the three, would rely on technology that does not yet exist. You can’t plan a strategy that way.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/...government.pdf

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36194705)

It’s my conclusion, epsilon. I’m not seeking your agreement. You will stick to your guns, whatever the evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36196435)

The only persistent thing here, OB, is your persistent refusal to acknowledge that Ofcom has proposed multiple solutions to this issue, only one of which involves switching Freeview off. The government does not ‘need’ to work on a smooth transition to IPTV/Freeview switch-off; it ‘needs’ to work on the most equitable, durable and cost effective solution, which *might*, but almost certainly won’t, involve an end to over-the-air broadcasting.

The link doesn’t confirm your opinions except inside your own head, where you persistently use motivated reasoning to elevate your opinions whilst explaining away those parts of the debate that don’t fit your narrow view.

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36196440)

I have completely lost the entire point of this thread.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196441)

Clearly, you’re not reading the links properly then.

I am well aware of Ofcom’s view and I know it is one of several options. There are always choices to be made and it’s not Ofcom’s decision, it is the government’s. In the light of existing budgetary constraints, I don’t think the alternatives you prefer will fly.

I totally get it that you have a different view, Chris, as do a number of people on this thread. It’s a mystery to me why you are getting so upset about it. It’s only TV, after all, and we’re not the ones making the decision.

Just chill….

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------



I’m sure many people don’t give a rats, Maggy, because in the scheme of things, it doesn’t matter one way or the other to most people.

I’m interested to see how this all plays out and I’m trying to have a discussion about it. Sadly, discussion on this subject is very emotional for some, although I fail to see why.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36196449)

Irony, thy name is OB…

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36196451)

Not emotional?

"persistent refuseniks" & "burying their heads in the sand", and from previous posts

"What planet are you lot on?"
"that goes right over your heads, doesn’t it?"
"You are just being intolerant to other ideas and argumentative",
"And blah, blah, blah."
"I’m not sure where you are coming from - it’s like you are living on a different planet."
"Still. as usual, you think you know better"
"I’m beginning to think some of you have shares in DTT!"