Re: The future of television
 

It isn't broadcasters proceeding in the way they prefer, they may well prefer to not fix what isn't broken and carry on with DTT. They don't own the infrastructure and those who should be making the decisions are sitting on their hands.

Of course, if Europe has a whole decides to keep UHF for DTT rather than mobile, this country doesn't have a "little England" option to opt out of that, there is one ITU, not a UK version of it.
I was going to post this earlier but lost the link, fortunately it's been reposted over the weekend. A nice little summary for those who may have got TL;DR vibes from the full Coleago report.

Re: The future of television
 

See something pop up about the BBC trying to get those who watch other streaming services to pay for a TV license, I honestly can't see it happening, but with our government, you never know!

Re: The future of television
 

Why are you saying that broadcasters may prefer to stick with DTT? Everything I'm reading on this subject indicates they want to go streaming only as soon as possible. They want the switchoff date to be earlier, not later.

Even the BBC wants this, which in my view is highly significant.

As for what Europe may do, that doesn't have to affect us at all.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...-tv-broadcast/

[EXTRACT]

The BBC and rival broadcasters are resisting efforts to delay the switch-off of terrestrial TV despite concerns the shift to streaming could leave older viewers behind.

The corporation and its fellow public service broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 are locked in discussions with the Government about when traditional TV signals will be fully replaced by internet streaming.

Under current legislation, broadcast TV is slated to continue until at least 2034. However, some campaigners are calling for this date to be pushed back to 2040 or beyond to ensure that older and more vulnerable audiences are not left disconnected.

The campaigners are joined by Arqiva, the company that owns Britain’s TV masts and has a commercial interest in extending their life.

The major broadcasters are pushing back against these efforts, arguing that they face hefty costs to keep ageing, energy-intensive signals running as audience numbers decline.

Re: The future of television
 

Again, OB flatly ignoring the fact that most of the future pathways for DTT do not involve keeping the same ageing, energy-intensive signals running. But then you’re taking your cues from the rage-clicking Telegraph so probably not surprising.

As per the link from Ofcom, and various items posted by epsilon, there are ways of making DTT run more efficiently.* The broadcasters are squealing because of regulatory inaction that has raised the prospect of none of those being implemented and therefore a decision to continue DTT being, by default, a decision to continue using DVB-T2.

*And also worth pointing out - again - that even in the highly unlikely event that if DTT is turned off in 2035 (it won’t be, because the concerns around access for the elderly and vulnerable are real and ultimately will have to be reckoned with), but even if it is, a vanilla TV service over IP will be broadcast, without pause/rewind, i.e. a bunch of FAST channels, which is the only way to make a nationwide IP broadcast system work within bandwidth constraints.

Re: The future of television
 

If you say so, Chris.

Re: The future of television
 

Because I get my information from the industry rather than limiting my research to the perspective of a right wing newspaper with an agenda.

Re: The future of television
 

You are not going to win an argument by rubbishing the source of links that confirm that a statement or position put forward is actually correct. That is a sure sign that the author disputing that point of view does not have any evidence to support the alternative they are advocating. This theme is splashed all over the media, including broadcast media, and it’s a fact that broadcasters don’t want to keep using DTT. It’s simply too expensive with the diminishing audience that is viewing in this way, and their view is that maintaining channels as well as streamers is an unnecessary expense.

The situation I have outlined will change only if the government intervenes. But do they have the money to compensate for the maintenance of an increasingly uneconomic system? Well, I suspect you know the answer to that one.

As for pensioners and any other non-tech savvies, even I can come up with a solution to that one that my late granny could use, and she didn’t even like to change a channel. It’s not hard! Just give them a box with the free on demand streamers on it and enable a setting which delivers a pre-set streamer each time you switch on if necessary. It can then go straight into a selection of programming from that streamer without pressing any further buttons if required. Remote controls could also enable switching streamers in the same way that some are already available with the Netflix button on it, for example.

The industry would pay that to achieve a DTT switch off and it could be part of a revised PSB remit.

That is more likely to be the type of intervention the government makes, and the broadcasters will accept that.

If you find any recent information that contradicts this post, please do provide it - I am all ears.

Re: The future of television
 

Ah, another standard OB debating technique … the ‘all you have to do is…’

… in which all you have to do is assume the problem has actually been solved. No evaluation, understanding or design required. All you have to do is make a box. Here’s one I made earlier.

And “the industry”, which doesn’t want to pay to keep using the reliable, well-understood thing they’ve been using for 20 years, will pay for this new thing that hasn’t been specified or designed, much less built and tested, because of course they just will.

Re: The future of television
 

It doesn't really matter what I say as you only take note of anything that suits your outlook and disregard the rest. That's been obvious to everyone for a while. I'll continue to deal with the facts rather than the musings of an obsessive crank.
One thing to note though, you are somewhat clueless as to the government's position in this (I'm being kind :p:). Government compensation for an increasingly uneconomic system? Why? they have no responsibility for the infrastructure. The only reason for the uncertainty is the rolling licence system favoured by the government in this country, it brings uncertainty. Come up with an actual plan and the infrastructure providers (Arqiva etc) will fund and provide it. The reality is they aren't going to fund anything with no plans in place and no return on their investment. So now the government are putting out feelers for what they should do next. Studies such as the Coleago one are coming back with possible solutions such as keeping a terrestrial system with more advanced codecs such as HEVC and VVC, which could carry more services per multiplex. Another suggestion is more utilisation of SFN networks, which would reduce the spectrum needed but wouldn't be great for regional services. It probably escaped your attention but government funding of transmitter infrastructure ended many years ago with the abolition of the IBA.

Re: The future of television
 

As I recall, the IBAs transmitters (or at least some of them) went to NTL, before ending up with Arqiva.

Re: The future of television
 

And the BBC's went to Castle Transmission Services, which became Crown Castle, then National Grid Wireless, merging with NTL Broadcast to form Arqiva.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

Give your granny a streaming box to use on the broadband service she doesn't have, need or want.

Re: The future of television
 

Only one thing wrong with that statement - it states as a fact that the statement or position is actually correct, when in fact, no decision has been made, it's still under debate, so how can something that's not been decided yet be "actually correct"?

Re: The future of television
 

He's never going to accept that, he's only looking for confirmation. That's why there is no point in posting the links he requested. He doesn't seem to actually read these articles, merely filters them. Accepting anything that may tenuously support his theory and rejecting anything else. Just as he took the Coleago Report as confirmation of his theory but, industry publication, TVB Europe took the highlights of the report as its options for continued support and modernisation of DTT.
When it comes to analysis of industry data, I'd prefer to consider the summary provided by an industry publication (TVB Europe is published by the b2b division of Future plc) to the views of an individual obsessed with a "streaming only" future.

Re: The future of television
 

I asked you to link any information that contradicts my post, and you say “It really doesn’t matter what I say…..” I’m sorry, epsilon, but you don’t want a serious discussion, you are just playing games, and sadly, you are not the only one to do so.

Ah, I’m also clueless on the government’s position, am I? Are you now turning this on its head and arguing that they actually have a position? The government doesn’t have a clue what they are going to do about this, which I thought you had acknowledged yourself!

Again, you are reading into my posts (or deliberately twisting them) that are not there. I absolutely did not say the government would compensate - I made it absolutely clear that they didn’t have the money to compensate broadcasters, and that therefore, the broadcasters would get what they wanted (ie, IPTV only).

You have not addressed the problem that would negate any plans to upgrade the DTT system, which is that the broadcasters don’t want two forms of distribution, particularly with DTT audiences declining. What I said was that the broadcasters would want compensation to do this, which of course, they won’t get.

You are clinging on to this romanticism that TV channels will somehow survive these changes and ignoring or attempting to rubbish anything that might suggest otherwise.

Some of you ask question after question of me which I try to answer every time, but you don’t answer those questions put to you, do you? So yes, you are playing a game.

Re: The future of television
 

I'd get another cause OB. There are bigger things to worry about than the future of TV. Take the climate , or health service for example... Much more worthy of your time and effort :)