Cable Forum - The future of television

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Other Digital TV Services Discussion (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=64)

- - The future of television (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709854)

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36197171)

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.

Actually, no, I’m looking for alternative scenarios that actually make sense in the light of what we can see happening with our own eyes. The government prevaricates (has no money); limited alternative options are postulated by Ofcom (one of which I am suggesting); Aquiva is looking at a way of modernising the system (which won’t solve the problem of diminishing profits as key viewers continue to migrate to streaming); the broadcasters want to broadcast via one, not two systems….all the evidence is there that DTT will not be available after 2035 without government intervention, which will cost money if they want to preserve the methods of the past.

My view has not shifted from what I said 10 years ago, and I see everything developing the way I said it would. I’m not looking for confirmation, I am looking for anything that might happen to disrupt this process. Nothing has been revealed so far in this thread, despite those desperate responses that are designed to look so knowledgeable. You don’t have any answers to the points I’ve made in the above paragraph that stand up to scrutiny.

I’m sorry to be so blunt, but really, your rude posts are beyond the pale. I much prefer a sensible discussion. I rose above all this playground stuff many moons ago.

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36197173)

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 :)

I do that as well, but not on this forum. It’s much too hostile. I’m only sticking around because I started this and want to see it through.

Re: The future of television

Is it worth all the evangelical ' only my view matters' zeal though OB? It's only tv. You have one view , other have theirs. Accept to differ? Then go and do something worthwhile. Food banks always need volunteers and they don't argue about the future of TV...

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36197121)

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.

The ‘problems’ you raise are non-problems, just as your ‘not enough electricity’ argument you rammed at me some years ago.

DTT could be improved as you say, but the point is that the broadcasters only want one system. You are not grasping that, are you?

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36197179)

If you read my most recent posts above, you would not come to that conclusion, Mr K. I’m putting forward what I think and looking for stumbling blocks to seeing that through to fruition. I’ve not heard anything credible to counteract my view yet, that is all.

That 2035 date I postulated 10 years ago is now all over the media, but it’s like water off a duck’s back on this forum! :rolleyes:

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36197180)

And you’re not grasping that just because broadcasters lobby for an outcome that suits them, it does not follow that they will get what they want. They are only one part of the equation, and moreover they are providing a service, and a service must align with the needs of service users.

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36197172)

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).

Hmmm! if that was your interpretation of my post I can see why you are totally confused by what is happening in the industry. Yes, you made it absolutely clear that the government don't have the cash for compensation. My point was where did you get the idea that any compensation would be necessary? There isn't a contractual relationship with the infrastructure providers that would merit any sort of compensation in whatever scenario you have imagined. In short, Arqiva is a commercial operator operating a private business. It isn't a government contractor likely to seek compensation.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36197177)

Actually, no, I’m looking for alternative scenarios that actually make sense in the light of what we can see happening with our own eyes. The government prevaricates (has no money)

A red herring. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate obfuscation or just your lack of understanding of how things work. The government doesn't need any money, they don't fund any of this, the commercial operators do.

Quote:

Aquiva is looking at a way of modernising the system (which won’t solve the problem of diminishing profits as key viewers continue to migrate to streaming)

Surely Arqiva (which is the correct spelling) know their business better than you do. If they think it is worth modernising, then surely it is.

Quote:

the broadcasters want to broadcast via one, not two systems….all the evidence is there that DTT will not be available after 2035 without government intervention, which will cost money if they want to preserve the methods of the past.

Investment that would already have been forthcoming if the government stopped sitting on their hands and came up with an actual plan for the future of PSBs and broadcasting in general.
The Telegraph's theory of broadcasters only wanting one system doesn't fly. Even with 405 line and analogue switch offs they ran dual systems for many years for better continuity of service. Same with the medium wave switch off, where services have continued for years with only a handful of listeners. Costs there are phenomenal, very high power transmitters and only carrying a single service. Remember that DTT transmitters each carry a multiplex with dozens of services, so the cost per service is relatively low. Same again with DAB radio, why aren't they broadcasters pressing to shut down the FM transmitters? As I said, the one system theory simply doesn't fly. It's not what is happening in the rest of the broadcasting world.

Quote:

My view has not shifted from what I said 10 years ago, and I see everything developing the way I said it would. I’m not looking for confirmation.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on your views? Not looking for confirmation? the evidence from many years of your posts demonstrates otherwise.

---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36197179)

Evangelising his opinion is understandable if pointless, especially as he seems to be a lone voice. It's the Violet Elizabeth tantrums when people don't agree with him that really annoy me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXiZHXkG-ac

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36197182)

I am grasping that, Chris, but which part of that equation will persuade broadcasters not to pursue their preferred strategy? In my view, only the government can do that.

Re: The future of television

… which it eventually will. Slowly and after the usual delays borne of complacency, but it will get its act together.

Public service broadcast licence terms are set by government. Ultimately, the BBC, ITV and channels 4 and 5 will broadcast via the delivery mechanism they are told to.

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36197182)

Absolutely, yes. There are many parts of the equation, but let’s look at why I have reached the conclusion I have.

I have already drawn attention to the fact that broadcasters want IPTV only. It’s not hard to see why. It’s cheaper than continuing to support the DTT system and there’s less financial outlay and work without scheduling programmes. New stuff can just be added as a new tile on the system. No more problems with programmes that need editing to fit them into the slot. No more other trying to find archive content to fill the increasingly blank schedules on each channel. The coveted viewers cherished by advertisers are moving on line. That is where broadcasters get better returns than on traditional channels, which are watched by fewer people each year and increasingly by an audience reluctant to spend much money.

On the other hand, we have Ofcom and the government. Ofcom is concerned by the older TV audience who might get left behind if IPTV was the only option left to watch TV. It will push this problem to the government. No doubt the government will consult with the broadcasters, and they will come up with their solutions to the problem and make it clear to the government that it will not be economic for them to continue to use DTT. The government will have to contemplate these arguments and also bear in mind that there will soon be pressure to use the DTT spectrum for other purposes, although as has been pointed out, there are proposals to improve the DTT infrastructure, and so the views of Arqiva will then need to be taken into account.

Then there’s the TV viewers.There is a sizeable chunk of viewers who are campaigning against shutting down DTT before 2040. The main problem is that there is a cost to that - who is going to bear that cost? The broadcasters will push back hard against that - even Davie of the BBC believes that, and he has no need to be concerned about advertisements as the commercial stations are.

I don’t deny that there may be some sort of basic DTT channel run by the BBC, but they will point out that this will come with a price tag. Who will pay for that? Perhaps it could be paid for with the cost savings of transferring most programming to IPTV only.

I can assure you that I am listening intently to the counter arguments, Chris, but I keep coming back to the cost of having two systems, and who will pay, because the broadcasters won’t want that without compensation.

And, of course, the government has no money.

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36197258)

Absolutely, yes. There are many parts of the equation, but let’s look at why I have reached the conclusion I have.

I have already drawn attention to the fact that broadcasters want IPTV only. It’s not hard to see why. It’s cheaper than continuing to support the DTT system and there’s less financial outlay and work without scheduling programmes. New stuff can just be added as a new tile on the system. No more problems with programmes that need editing to fit them into the slot. No more other trying to find archive content to fill the increasingly blank schedules on each channel. The coveted viewers cherished by advertisers are moving on line. That is where broadcasters get better returns than on traditional channels, which are watched by fewer people each year and increasingly by an audience reluctant to spend much money.

On the other hand, we have Ofcom and the government. Ofcom is concerned by the older TV audience who might get left behind if IPTV was the only option left to watch TV. It will push this problem to the government. No doubt the government will consult with the broadcasters, and they will come up with their solutions to the problem and make it clear to the government that it will not be economic for them to continue to use DTT. The government will have to contemplate these arguments and also bear in mind that there will soon be pressure to use the DTT spectrum for other purposes, although as has been pointed out, there are proposals to improve the DTT infrastructure, and so the views of Arqiva will then need to be taken into account.

Then there’s the TV viewers.There is a sizeable chunk of viewers who are campaigning against shutting down DTT before 2040. The main problem is that there is a cost to that - who is going to bear that cost? The broadcasters will push back hard against that - even Davie of the BBC believes that, and he has no need to be concerned about advertisements as the commercial stations are.

I don’t deny that there may be some sort of basic DTT channel run by the BBC, but they will point out that this will come with a price tag. Who will pay for that? Perhaps it could be paid for with the cost savings of transferring most programming to IPTV only.

I can assure you that I am listening intently to the counter arguments, Chris, but I keep coming back to the cost of having two systems, and who will pay, because the broadcasters won’t want that without compensation.

And, of course, the government has no money.

As epsilon posted at 22:58 yesterday

Quote:

The Telegraph's theory of broadcasters only wanting one system doesn't fly. Even with 405 line and analogue switch offs they ran dual systems for many years for better continuity of service. Same with the medium wave switch off, where services have continued for years with only a handful of listeners. Costs there are phenomenal, very high power transmitters and only carrying a single service. Remember that DTT transmitters each carry a multiplex with dozens of services, so the cost per service is relatively low. Same again with DAB radio, why aren't they broadcasters pressing to shut down the FM transmitters? As I said, the one system theory simply doesn't fly. It's not what is happening in the rest of the broadcasting world.

Re: The future of television

I don't think that the streaming service will be VOD only, I think that there will be streamed linear channels.

The commercial channels & advertisers will love this as people won't be able to FF through the adverts.

Re: The future of television

Indeed, and I’m sitting through some unskippable adverts on Pluto TV right now, in the middle of an episode of Mission Impossible. As I’ve been saying for years, sometimes you can’t be bothered wading through tons of VOD trying to pick something. A nice bit of nostalgia is all that’s required … pick one of the channels and jump in to whatever ep happens to be playing.

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36197261)

As epsilon posted at 22:58 yesterday

Yes, Hugh, but they were both terrestrial systems offering TV channels, so it was a no brainer.

What we have here is two completely different systems.

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36197265)

Yes, Hugh, but they were both terrestrial systems offering TV channels, so it was a no brainer.

What we have here is two completely different systems.

You haven’t been paying attention (as per).

Switching to IP delivery does not equate to TV as VOD only, as many people have told you, over and over again. IP is just a delivery mechanism. Even if it were technically and societally feasible to switch to an entirely IP-based delivery mechanism 10 years from now, linear broadcast channels are not going to stop in 2035. Their utility is too great.

I have (almost) every streaming service it’s possible to get in the UK but even I have spent the last 3 hours watching linear TV, entirely IP delivered (we never did get round to installing an aerial on our new house). First, BBC1, then Pluto TV. And it is FAST services like Pluto that really are the proof of the pudding. If we were hurtling towards a future in which nobody wants linear broadcast, where on earth have the FAST services sprung from, and why?

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36197261)

As epsilon posted at 22:58 yesterday

Aha! but he didn't get the confirmation he seeks (but denies seeking) from that. So he filtered the whole thing out of his analysis (whilst simultaneously claiming not to do that). A good demonstration really of how he actually analyses possible future outcomes. Useful to compare this with what he claims to be doing.

---------- Post added at 00:57 ---------- Previous post was at 00:44 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36197265)

Yes, Hugh, but they were both terrestrial systems offering TV channels, so it was a no brainer.

What we have here is two completely different systems.

I know you have filtered out the fact that Freely, the IP version of Freeview, delivers DVB channels over IP along with the same apps currently available on Freeview (iplayer, itvx etc). It doesn't fit in with your personal view of what could happen, which you refer to as the "facts". So, well, they aren't really completely different systems are they?
You also filtered out the other multi-platform broadcasts mentioned. You know, the FM / DAB duplication. If it helps you to process this, I know you have difficulty with over the air systems, you can also consider the other platforms simulcasting these services. BBC Sounds, Global Player, Rayo, Nation Player etc and also the raw streaming available on web browsers and wi-fi radios. Multiple simulcasts, yet no call to switch off the expensive single service FM transmitters. And no demands that the government compensate them for, you know, providing their service to their listeners.

---------- Post added at 00:59 ---------- Previous post was at 00:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36197266)

..where on earth have the FAST services sprung from, and why?

Oh don't go there, they don't fit into his theory so are just considered to be a momentary blip and will die out completely to bring about his on demand / streaming dream.

Re: The future of television

Quote:

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36197270)

What confirmation? I’m trying to have a conversation here. Why must you be so argumentative and snide in your comments? You made a perfectly reasonable comparison with 405 line and analogue switch offs. I was simply making the point that DTT and IPTV are completely different because the latter was on demand rather than channel based. Previous big changes have not enabled such revolutionary change to the method by which broadcasters present their content. As for ‘filtering out of my analysis’, I did no such thing. I do not spend all day and night on Cable Forum and I had not had an opportunity to respond to your post - I hadn’t ignored it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36197270)

If that’s what you meant by ‘filtering’, again, no. This is not about the availability of alternative means of scheduled channel delivery, it is about the changeover to on demand, which broadcasters find cheaper and easier to manage for reasons I have given on multiple occasions. THAT is the point, not ‘Is there an alternative method of delivery over the airwaves?’. As I said earlier, with diminishing audiences watching our traditional channels, the broadcasters are unwilling to continue to plough money into it.

As for this point you make about compensation, where have I said anywhere that the government or anyone else had to pay compensation? What I am saying is that unless compensation is available, the broadcasters will be unwilling to keep funding the existing system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36197270)

Oh don't go there, they don't fit into his theory so are just considered to be a momentary blip and will die out completely to bring about his on demand / streaming dream.

This withering comment was about the FAST channels. I have already (how many times?) explained that these channels are run on the cheap and they simply don’t incur the same costs as the big five. You’ve only got to compare the content with the traditional channels to see that.

The FAST channels were never a part of my prediction, but my view is that they will indeed survive the switchover to IPTV only. But don’t expect the likes of BBC, ITV and the rest to follow - they will stick with on demand because it saves them costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36197270)

Evangelising his opinion is understandable if pointless, especially as he seems to be a lone voice.

Well, epsilon, with the bullying and hectoring way you guys react to opinions different from your own, is it any wonder that others don’t stick their heads above the parapet? I know for a fact that some people do agree with me, but they won’t say so on here, which is a shame. These are really interesting times, and people would expect to see intelligent debate on these issues, particularly on a forum like this.

---------- Post added at 17:03 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36197263)

I agree, Richard, because there do seem to be a lot of people who like to ‘channel hop’ and just watch what comes up that happens to interest them.

As long as the FAST channels can get more advertisement funding than it costs to run these services, then they will continue to survive.

---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:03 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36197266)

I don’t think you are grasping what I’m saying here. You can make as good a case as you like on how the existing DTT channels could be replicated in as many ways as you would want, but you have completely ignored or missed my point.

The broadcasters want to put out their content on demand via IPTV only. This is the issue you need to address because it is the one thing that is most likely to dictate which road is taken in the next few years.

If you don’t believe me, ask Tim Davie. As you know, the BBC is always to be relied upon to deliver the news correctly (or so you tell me on here)!