Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36035997)

I just did, but from a different thread. It's on here too but I can't be arsed to trawl through 88 pages!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36035997)

I just did, but from a different thread. It's on here too but I can't be arsed to trawl through 88 pages!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036003)

Thanks Old Boy for digging up my old post, which I think you will find entirely consistent with my most recent one here.

My bold.

You keep wilfully leaving out this caveat.

You will find that my position is entirely consistent with the BBCs here.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036003)

You can pick any channel run on a shoestring budget on the Sky EPG to confirm that the actual cost of broadcasting is tiny compared to the actual cost of content.

You are the only person that sees this as a zero sum game. These companies (and more importantly their shareholders) do not.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036003)

You are the only person that sees this as a zero sum game. These companies (and more importantly their shareholders) do not.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36036006)

My post 1318 includes your caveat. So what's your point?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36035997)

I just did, but from a different thread. It's on here too but I can't be arsed to trawl through 88 pages!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036010)

My point is that you wilfully misrepresent it. As in post 1314, noted by Hugh in post 1315.



BBC 4 has an annual budget of £44m. They want to invest in content for BBC 3 - doubling investment to £80m.

So the choice that the BBC are toiling over is, unsurprisingly, much more complex than the simplistic way you portrayed it in your post. Some credible links too:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...nder-proposals

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...losure-rumours



I couldn't have put that better myself. :)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36035974)

Jfman believes that a linear TV station can be run for tuppence, so it really shouldn’t even a problem, Den. 😂

---------- Post added at 18:44 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------



Not yet it’s not. Don’t know where you got that from.

Ask that question again in the next decade.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036021)

I've never denied that content costs money. :)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36036014)

I quite understand - why should you have to resort to evidence-based discussion...

---------- Post added at 21:32 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

tuppence, £80m - not much difference...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36036062)

I agree that jfman didn't actually say it would cost tuppence to run a linear channel. He actually said it would cost 'buttons', which is much the same thing. I acknowledge his caveat, but I have never questioned that.

According to your links, the BBC want to increase funding for BBC3, which is fine. However, given the dearth of new programming on BBC4, it is amazing that the channel costs as much as it does to run.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36036066)

Not much new content on BBC1 or BBC2 either so why should 3/4 be any different?

Not a great deal on streamed TV either - the virus affects every type of TV.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36036062)

I agree that jfman didn't actually say it would cost tuppence to run a linear channel. He actually said it would cost 'buttons', which is much the same thing. I acknowledge his caveat, but I have never questioned that.

According to your links, the BBC want to increase funding for BBC3, which is fine. However, given the dearth of new programming on BBC4, it is amazing that the channel costs as much as it does to run.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036070)

You didn’t acknowledge the caveat in your reply to Den. That’s the point.

Even in this post you are conflating the cost of running a linear channel (including content) and creating a linear broadcast (from content you own and are likely streaming.

Not once have you ever demonstrated how and when linear ceases to be viable. Switch on a TV and press 1 is always going to hold some value because of it’s prominence and it works if your internet provider goes down. https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/28/thous...ours-12619391/

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36036118)

Didn't he say 2035?

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36036118)

Didn't he say 2035?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35954377)

If you go back to all my posts on this, you will see that I have been looking towards 2035 (originally 20 years ahead but less now)!

It will be a gradual process at first, but that will speed up as fast broadband speeds become available throughout the country and more people become used to on demand viewing. The reduction in audience levels for the conventional TV channels will lead to reduced advertising revenues and ultimately, these channels will start closing down.

Some have said that the BBC won't be affected as they don't carry commercials, but even they are working on the basis that in 15 years' time' streaming and on demand viewing will be the focus.

Others have said that we will always see conventional channels for showing sport, but we can all see the trend towards streaming of live sport - the new Eleven Sports streaming service being the latest example.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35814512)

In ten years? You may be right. In 20? Do you remember what it was like watching TV 20 years ago? In 1995, analogue cable TV was just being rolled out and most people did not have the Internet.

Given all the changes that can happen in a short space of time, particularly now, with technological advances being made at an ever faster rate, I don't think it wise to be saying that the existing linear TV model will still exist, at least in its present form, in the longer term.

And as for the BBC, I did not say that it would not exist in ten years. There's not a reason that I can think of why the BBC should not present all of its programmes by way of streaming in the future.

Incidentally, the BBC may be the last to depart from linear TV broadcasting, given that their channels do not waste 15 minutes of every hour showing commercials!