Re: The future of television
 

Strange question. You are normally the first person to state that broadband has not fully rolled out. But there’s your reason why we need a transitional period. Simples.

Re: The future of television
 

But it’s on an app - the broadband issue isn’t relevant for an end user once they are already online and able to stream video. Why maintain linear channels on this new super streaming sports app? Unless….

Re: The future of television
 

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/broadband.shtml

Are you saying that we have to wait for the 2.19% of the U.K. population who have Broadband speeds of less than 30Mb/s before the transitional period is ended?

Re: The future of television
 

Not my decision, old chap. We should perhaps wait for habits to change and possibly for more people to purchase smart TVs, although of course we all know on here there are workarounds using an HDMI socket.

Good to know that the predictions from some quarters on here about the broadband rollout not being implemented by 2025 have proved to be somewhat removed from the reality we are now experiencing.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------

Try explaining that to those who are not as tech savvy as you, jfman. Why don’t you try it out on your granny?

Re: The future of television
 

Considering we buried her the day Princess Diana crashed in Paris that would be somewhat challenging.

You do raise an interesting point though, I’d hypothesise in her later years using apps at all would have been almost impossible, linear channels or otherwise. No internet in her household (it was the 90s, after all), in fact only got a landline in the final few years for emergencies.

She got on just fine with 1-4 and Sky, until Channel 5 launched on UHF 37 and messed up the VCR.

My guess would be as people live longer with deteriorating health issues (such as dementia) a simple interface will be essential for any hypothetical “streaming” future. So primitive it will be linear over IP, with on demand and app menus. Like a Sky or Virgin interface now. If it ain’t broke and all that.

Re: The future of television
 

I'm utterly pissed off that I can't record on Stream.

As I said on this site somewhere a few years ago, I was suspicious that all this new fangled streaming was simply bookmarks on servers to ondemand shows and that's exactly what Sky Stream is. I hate it.

Once we lose our conventional linear tv system, we'll never get it back and all the power won from the days of the wars over recording onto VHS will be lost to the American tech giants aka New Hollywood.

And my tv doesn't work when the internet fails, nor does my phone. But hey, that's progress...:(

Re: The future of television
 

Transmitter faults were a thing back in the good old days :shrug: Things were also more likely to go wrong at the play out suite back in the day as well. It’s exceptionally rare these days but the card with ‘TEMPORARY FAULT’ broadcast with easy-listening muzak was far from uncommon on our screens.

Re: The future of television
 

Interesting! Particularly the stat about 31% of 65+ age range not using the Internet at home. To me, the main benefit of an Internet TV service is dispensing with the need for another cable so that TVs just need to be located near a power socket.
https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/end-of-fre...ing-to-report/

Re: The future of television
 

True and even in more recent history, I couldn't receive Ch5 very well down an aerial. It was either get it via cable or sat.

---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

To put it crudely, they'll all die off and that problem will then resolve itself, although for those poorer, there would need to be some benefits package to subsidise a broadband connection.

And talking of getting rid of cables, I came across a gadget I had never heard of before, a wireless HDMI transmitter. That solves the issue of using one STB on multiple tvs, as but one use of it.

Re: The future of television
 

If Disney, Fox and Warner Bros Discovery own it.

Who gets the extra 1%?

Re: The future of television
 

I cant recall ever not being able to watch TV due to a transmitter fault.

There have, however, been times over the years when my Sky has failed (lost signal) due to really heavy rain [only for a few minutes].

Re: The future of television
 

Sky Sports has a very bad fault on Tuesday night with a EFL game - even Virgin has poor Picture.

It was that bad Sky has to move game to a other channel.

Re: The future of television
 

I guess it depends on where you are in the country, but was quite common for me. And yes, as for the dish and rain... that was a primary reason I got cable tv in 1991 and had it continually until last year.

Re: The future of television
 

I have vague memories of the odd transmitter fault. I wonder if it was during the time of transfer from VHF to UHF? I'm too old to remember back that far!:D

I also remember the potters wheel waiting for "Watch with Mother" to start!!!!!

BTW. She never did, always too busy.

Re: The future of television
 

You missed the punchline, jfman.

Re: The future of television
 

The future beckons…

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/sky-sports...-satellite-tv/

Re: The future of television
 

They'll have to stop claiming sport is 'live' then. Streamed coverage can be minutes behind the live game. . Try syncing radio coverage of a game with a video stream. You have to pause the radio for ages for the video stream to catch up. They are going backwards really ;)

Of course the best experience is being there. The speed of light is the only delay :)

Re: The future of television
 

Sky+ HD subscribers are being offered a free upgrade to Sky Q (a saving of £99). I can't understand why they aren't offering Sky Stream or Sky Glass as the BBC has estimated that Sky will leave satellite in 5 to 10 years time.

Re: The future of television
 

Imagine the loss in value to betting companies from being unable to bet on events as they happen!

Re: The future of television
 

BuT iT’s ThE FEWCHER!!!

Re: The future of television
 

The cheapest social broadband tariffs in the UK at present are £12 a month, for which you get 20Mbps broadband - not nearly enough to stream reliably to even one TV in a house full of bandwidth hungry kids.

There will be no streaming-only future, with or without streamed linear broadcasts, as long as people are expected to pay to receive what they currently can get for free.

Re: The future of television
 

Because a lot less people would take it up.
Streaming is not an option for many (still), and for others, the lack of recording ability is a show stopper (its why we refused to move to stream).

Re: The future of television
 

I know that’s frustrating when watching a live event, but the latency issues are being taken seriously. Hopefully, this will be resolved over the next few years.

Of course, Chris is right about the limitations of people who have slow broadband speeds.

Re: The future of television
 

Or of course - those that don't want/need broadband at all.

Jeremy Corbin might have advocated for broadband communism with free broadband for all but I doubt this Government, or the next, or the one after that, or the one after that will.

Re: The future of television
 

The other day I found my Fotmob pinged as the goal was scored on the live ITV1 match.

I found that the ITV1 broadcast was about 20 seconds behind Radio 5 commentary of the same game - on DTT, D-Sat and cable.

Checking other games since I found there is a big delay on ITV1.

Most people would never know about delays in such things.

Re: The future of television
 

ITV will be the worst example because they have to introduce artificial delays across the regions to allow for efficient stat muxing on satellite.

I suspect most people don’t know how far behind the stadium they are but many will quickly know if they are behind their neighbours or friends they message during events.

Re: The future of television
 

...or if they hear a cheer from next door :D

Re: The future of television
 

I had a look at various regions on satellite - and all were well behind.

Stat muxing doesn't need 20 second delays.

I suspect it is more to get certain audio ditched before broadcast.

Re: The future of television
 

Sooner or later, they will have to make sure that everyone is able to access broadband, because that will be our access to everything in the end.

People hate the closure of the banks in the high street, but this doesn’t stop it from happening.

Re: The future of television
 

Yet there are still banks, only fewer of them. A bit like linear television.

I can think of many billions of reasons why broadband won't simply be given away to placate an unrealistic and unnecessary fantasy of ending linear television.

Re: The future of television
 

Many of those who moan about the closure of branches are likely the same people who already do their banking online and don't visit the branches. They just want them there just in case.

Re: The future of television
 

So are ‘they’ going to make broadband free … you know, like it’s free to put up an aerial and receive radio waves? Maybe that’s a new thing to do with the TV licence?

Yes I agree!!!!!

Its not like there are no commercials so what are ppl paying for??

I have read over the years alot of people do not pay and they dont find out but then I read they can pull up outside your house and detect if your watching TV..

Yes I know with CRT they could (Just check for various signals (550am is one)) but with these flat screen things I dont think they give off any RF do they??

I mean not like a CRT that if you pull in front of somones house and goto 550am you can tell if its on.... (It makes a certain sound)

Re: The future of television
 

No they've never been able to check, all their stories of detector vans etc were just scare tactics. Empty vans with a dish or aerial on tip driving round random locations.

Many people do not pay the TV licence now as they feel its outdated and wrong. Or they just don't like the BBC. Some don't pay as they no longer watch live broadcast TV others don't pay but still watch.

BBC channels themselves do not have any adverts at all. All other channels do have adverts but even if you didn't watch any BBC or listen to the radio then you still must pay.

Re: The future of television
 

I have no idea; it was a proposal a few years ago, but I haven’t seen any government enthusiasm for this.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

You and your linear TV hang up!

It is pretty self evident that broadcasts receivable by aerial will no longer be available in the foreseeable future, and after that it will all be via IPTV. The ‘linear channel’ issue is a separate consideration from that because they could still carry on as now (but via IPTV) if the channels chose (or were compelled) to do so.

We now have the FAST channels as well, which in my opinion are likely to survive these changes as they are streamed anyway.

So everyone will, in fact, need broadband to receive their programmes. Perhaps the licence fee could be adjusted and re-purposed to pay for basic broadband speeds to enable people to watch their TVs.

Re: The future of television
 

It’s not my hang up I’ve not started a thread at least once a year on the last ten proclaiming the end is nigh :D

Re: The future of television
 

I’m just telling it as it is, jfman. Surely, these forums are to raise items of interest and discuss. You really don’t have to participate if you don’t want to.

Re: The future of television
 

So we've now pinned down that linear television - broadcast schedules running for (the majority of) 24 hours a day, every day where actual people in different locations watch the exact same moment at the exact same time is here to stay.

You just think they'll be over IP based services, not DTT, satellite or cable?

Ya I figured that!! (Scare tactics)

It seemed to work though on many.......

Re: The future of television
 

No longer though. Many people has stopped paying the TV (license)tax. Either genuinely no longer watching TV as streaming serives like Netflix and Disney+ are all they watch and others just out of being fed up with the BBC.

Re: The future of television
 

Dont you need a licence to watch streaming services now ?

Re: The future of television
 

Only iPlayer so far, whether it’s live or catch up. Though I imagine the background lobbying to incorporate all streaming TV is already underway.

Re: The future of television
 

Also Amazon if it is one of the live channels and Likely Netflix when they launch live events soon. Or if watching something like BBC news live on YouTube.

Re: The future of television
 

I think a lot depends on what the government dictates. I think that without that interference the big channels will become on demand and the only linear channels will be the new FAST channels.

That’s not to say we won’t have live TV, it’s just that it will be streamed. Just like the PPV boxing, for example.

---------- Post added at 23:41 ---------- Previous post was at 23:37 ----------

You do, but in future it could be used for social broadband instead for those who cannot afford or choose not to have higher speeds.

The Beeb is likely to be funded by a combination of subscriptions and advertising, although, again, the government could choose the copout route and fund it from general taxation.

Re: The future of television
 

What’s the difference between a linear channel and a FAST one?

Re: The future of television
 

They are both linear, of course, but my 2035 prediction did not refer to them as they didn't exist at the time to the best of my knowledge. I was referring to our more conventional broadcast channels.

Re: The future of television
 

FAST ones are slower.

Re: The future of television
 

That’s not what I asked - I asked what the difference was?

---------- Post added at 11:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 ----------

:D

Re: The future of television
 

FAST simply stands for Free Ad-Supported Television, which is what ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and many others already do, broadcasting over cable, terrestrial or satellite. The only reason the acronym has come into use is because operators have started broadcasting over IP, in a space previously occupied only by on-demand content, and in order to discuss developments it is useful to have terms that distinguish between them.

But don’t let that obscure an important point in this long-running debate: ‘FAST channels’ are simply linear broadcast TV. Moreover, some of them are even operated by broadcasters who are new to the market, because the cost of running a broadcast channel over IP are lower than broadcast over established methods.

The fact that they exist is hard proof that your predictions are extremely shaky. The technology that has enabled streaming has also further enabled broadcast, such that *new* broadcast channels are now starting up.

Re: The future of television
 

And conventional TV channels are becoming more like FAST channels. Channels like the forthcoming Rewind TV and Talking Pictures are pretty indistinguishable from FAST channels with no announcers and old content. The only difference is they're delivered over satellite and transmitters and not broadband.

I'm also sure that FAST channels are not a new thing and pre-date Old Boy's predictions. Pluto TV is ten years old and my Samsung had them on it back in 2017.

Re: The future of television
 

They tend to be one programme channels (eg the Generation Game channel), they are streamed and you cannot record the programmes. They are generally low quality channels containing programmes that have seen better days.

I must say, they do make you appreciate our traditional channels, despite the fact that they’ve dumbed down in recent years.

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

That seems to be the way our channels are heading because more of the decent stuff is being routed towards the streamers as time goes on.

I doubt that I was aware of Pluto back in 2015 and I don’t think that many of us were. However, these are not the channels I had in mind when I said everything would be on demand in all likelihood by 2035.

Re: The future of television
 

So everything will be on demand by 2035, apart from the stuff that won’t. Got it. :rofl:

Re: The future of television
 

I said our conventional broadcast linear channels. How in a million years did you think FAST channels fitted that description?

Re: The future of television
 

What was all the schtick about schedulers not being required and criticising lazy viewers just putting up whatever they are being fed if indeed they are a part of the future over IP?

Re: The future of television
 

This, folks, is the sound goalposts make when they’re being forcibly uprooted, dragged down the tunnel and jammed underneath the team bus.

Re: The future of television
 

These threads would be much shorter if OB would stop doing that.

I think there's pretty broad agreement on a number of things if he'd just define his terms clearly so we know what he means.

FAST channels are a red herring - the term doesn't add anything meaningful to the discourse at all. A 24 hour a day TV channel (sometimes called a 'linear' channel) is just that whether it broadcasts news, sports, general entertainment, documentaries, or 24 hours a day of Casualty episodes. Being able to do this over IP has reduced the barriers to entry (cost) but it's fundamentally the same thing using a new technology.

There's two (quite interesting) but distinct conversations to be had.

The technologies to deliver television (both linear, channels and on demand). Digital television in the UK will be 30 years old in four years time.

DTT: There's competition for that bandwidth from mobile operators.

Satellite (in the UK): The three satellites broadcasting from 28.2E reach end of life on paper in five years. In practice however, lifespan could go beyond 20 years. Elsewhere in Europe the satellite operator (SES) is commissioning Astra 1P and 1Q - taking their broadcast commitment well into the 2040s across the continent.

Cable: Virgin with long term plans to retire the old network could push an all IP solution over their new full fibre network (when complete).

The second conversation - is how people consume television. This has always been a moving picture (pun intended). VHS in the 80s to PVR products in the early 2000s have always given people the capability to timeshift and watch what they want, when they want, from the previously broadcast content. Sky+ was a gamechanger in this regard with no degradation of quality and the ability to watch one channel while recording another from the subscription channels. Cable had on demand services that were good but hamstrung by weak STBs and interfaces. Yet still watching television, as and when it was broadcast, has remained resilient.

IP creates 'streaming' opportunities for on demand content. It removes the need for additional hardware as with on demand services over cable and to consciously choose to record something from the end user. Despite this streaming services such as Peacock in the US carry around 50 linear channels as well as their on demand library.

Re: The future of television
 

Another thing to bear in mind is network resiliency - if everything is delivered through Broadband, and all recordings are in "The Cloud*", what happens when the network goes down?

A prime example was last week - local thunderstorm and lightning strike took out a bunch of cabinets near us, and we had no VM connection to the WWW. With present technology, we could use our existing aerial and digital channels, and the recordings on the V6, if we so wished.

Pretty sure no Broadband providers are going to provide resilience (such as 4G/5G back-up hub) free as part of the PSB remit**…

* "The Cloud" is just someone else’s computer/storage…

**making sure viewers can access a wide range of public service content on a free-to-air basis

Re: The future of television
 

This.

BT’s full-fibre offering comes with 4G redundancy (which to my knowledge has never kicked in once in the 2 years we’ve had it) but even if it’s never consuming bandwidth there’s a hardware cost due to the 4G modem which is separate from the Homehub. It is a premium product, and even if it becomes a standard product when they have some newer premium innovation to sell, the one thing it is never likely to be is a free add on to a socially necessary bare bones broadband contract.

Re: The future of television
 

While we are in broad agreement something to add is even if you offered 4G back up this would very quickly become overwhelmed in the case of a local issue and even for an issue with a single line relies significantly on the positioning of the device.

The average user, in the average house, with their modem next to their phone socket or ONT that was optimised for where it could be positioned to minimise the work in the house (or a central cupboard probably in a new build) will likely get a data connection to keep them 'online' but not anything necessarily like what would be required for TV continuity of service.

Re: The future of television
 

Yes, for our conventional broadcasters.

The FAST channels are showing largely old or at least much cheaper programmes and have a much reduced financial outlay. They can simply upload programmes with ads sprinkled in without any need to keep to schedules.

---------- Post added at 21:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:05 ----------

Chris, you are just being deliberately argumentative. I am disappointed with you, really I am.

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:06 ----------

Stop doing what? You (and some others) are deliberately confusing and conflating things. Don’t blame me for that.

I have been very clear, and that’s why I continue to refer to ‘conventional broadcast TV channels’. These are the channels listed on Freeview, plus the Sky satellite channels and their multi-channel packages. Oh, and Virgin Ultra HD.

To cover up the unravelling of your naysaying arguments that they would never disappear in favour of streaming, you are now pushing an argument about the FAST channels, which was never part of my argument.

Frankly, it should be obvious to everyone (who has been paying attention) by now that those ‘conventional broadcast channels’ will not be around much longer unless the government or Ofcom make it a mandatory requirement. Nine years on from my prediction for 2035, we are continuing exponentially to move in that direction.

Who knows where we will end up, but you have my take on it. You can believe what you like.

---------- Post added at 21:22 ---------- Previous post was at 21:20 ----------

You have a point, but is that something that the broadcasters will be concerned about? If it is their assessment that financially streaming is the way to go, only the government/Ofcom will stand in their way.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Ah, yes, I still remember that old argument that we didn’t have enough electricity supply to cope with all this streaming!

Re: The future of television
 

Will the broadcasters be concerned that the only things that would stand in their way if they decided streaming is the way to go are

- OFCOM (which is responsible for licensing all UK commercial television services, and who could remove their broadcasting licences)

- HM Government, who write the Laws regarding broadcasting licences

Is that a serious question?

Re: The future of television
 

Globally, the internet is on track to consume 20% of all electricity production next year.

https://theconversation.com/the-inte...ainable-160639

Meanwhile the BBC established that per device/hour, streaming consumes twice as much electricity as terrestrial broadcast.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2020-0...ming-broadcast

As of 2022 more than a third of UK households were Freeview-only (37%). These homes - representing around 10 million households - are the ones that will be doubling their TV-viewing electricity consumption. Doubling.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ng-households/

So, yes, the power consumption issue hasn’t gone away, but only because as of right now it hasn’t yet become an issue. If terrestrial broadcast TV is switched off, well then, it might be. At present the National Grid is preoccupied with the capacity constraints that are imminent issues, arising from electrification of road transport and home heating.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68601354

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------

Your argument was always on thin ice precisely because you were foolish enough to make hard predictions about the future, when anyone with an ounce of wisdom knows to expect the unexpected. FAST channels are - more or less - unexpected, though as more people take an interest in IP-delivered TV it maybe ought to have been obvious that broadcasters with an established business model and an eye for reduced costs would take an interest.

I understand why you’d like us to ignore them, as they are the final nail in the coffin for your predictions. Unlucky for you.

Re: The future of television
 

OB inventing an argument I didn’t actually make and still coming up wrong on power consumption. I was referring to backup bandwidth over 4G which is limited. As any O2 user impacted by network congestion can testify.

Re: The future of television
 

His comment on power consumption refers back to a point I made in some version or other of this discussion some years ago now. Like FAST TV, it baked OB’s noodle because he hadn’t considered it and didn’t have any way to counter it, so he adopted his usual tactic of sneering at it and hoping it would just go away. Which obviously it won’t.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m not ignoring the FAST channels. I am simply saying that I was not referring to the FAST channels when I made my prediction. Ever since I realised the level of pedantry my detractors were using to prove me wrong, I have been careful to clarify time and again that I was referring our ‘traditional broadcast channels’. You know that full well.

My prediction is far from unravelling, but those who argued that streaming would never take over are very reluctant to admit that their predictions are indeed unravelling.

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

I am well aware that the argument about not being enough power supply was Chris’s. I didn’t say it was yours.

I am also not saying that Chris is wrong about the shortfall in electricity generation. I am simply pointing out that problems such as these will be overcome.

Re: The future of television
 

What's the difference between a "traditional" channel and a FAST channel?

Would ITV1 over IP be FAST? If not, why not?

Re: The future of television
 

More assumptions that are not true. You’re starting to sound desperate now, Chris.

Incidentally, although I have a personal disdain for the FAST channels, that’s simply due to the fact that they make for even more dumbed-down viewing. If people want to watch them, fine - it’s no skin off my nose.

As for the electricity supply, that’s your argument, not mine, and it’s based on that inexplicable attitude that the pair of you seem to have that nothing much will change from where we stand now.

If you haven’t noticed channels starting to disappear, like the Disney Channel, FX and so on, and the redirection of original material to the streamers, then you haven’t been paying attention. We’re not even half way into my prediction period yet and everything is pointing to what I said more or less coming true.

Oh, and don’t forget that even the BBC is planning for an all-streaming future within the next 10 years. That’s something that I note you are trying hard to ignore.

---------- Post added at 13:17 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Now you are being ridiculous. You know very well what a FAST channel is, and that my belief is that ITV1, 2, 3 and 4 will just morph into ITVX. If the government allows them to do so, of course.

Re: The future of television
 

Actually, the business world have been told by the CEO of Disney that they 'Invested too much in streaming'.

I also recently read a report that said that some companies were now regretting pulling their channels off linear TV platforms in order to promote their new streaming services. The regular guaranteed income from pay TV operators was something that they missed.

https://www.investopedia.com/disney-...70#:~:text=The CEO said that "spending,support its path to profitability.

Re: The future of television
 

If the Government does not allow them to do so, or if the most successful free to air commercial broadcaster in this country decides to do so themselves, would it be a FAST channel?

You claim I know what it is - I’ll be honest with you I find the concept so ill defined I am seeking clarification on it. Whether you would want ITV1 to continue as a linear channel over IP is irrelevant to my question.

What characteristics of a FAST channel would be missing if it was not?

Re: The future of television
 

As I said, retiring the channels to show all programmes on demand/live streaming can’t happen if the government or Ofcom stepped in. But would they?

---------- Post added at 16:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:55 ----------

I guess it would be a FAST channel in those circumstances. It would also be far superior to the present offering, given the limited choice of programmes currently available on the present crop of FAST channels.

I suppose it is also possible that in such a scenario, the former broadcast channels may offer a much more limited choice than would be available on their streamers both to encourage the audience to switch to that method of viewing in order to comply with such a dictat from the government or the regulators.

When I look at Pluto now, it seems to me that the on demand content is more prominent than before - previously, it was the channels that our eyes were drawn to. This may possibly be an indication that the on demand part of the streamer is more popular, but I haven’t seen any audience figures to confirm that.

Re: The future of television
 

I’m not sure why it requires Government instruction the clue is in the name. Ad supported.

I’m yet to see a credible explanation why large, established television companies with back catalogues would be incapable of this yet “Pluto” can do it.

Re: The future of television
 

My suggestion is that the big broadcasters will move to on demand and will only continue to run their TV channels if the government or regulator tell them they have to.

Obviously, the bigger broadcasters have a considerable amount of expenditure which the FAST channels don’t have to bear. Why would they spend extra money on channels, with all the associated expenditure when they could simply put all their programmes on a streamer?

Re: The future of television
 

What additional expenditure?

The why is because people watch, and enough people to support the minimal additional expenditure involved. Why would “ad supported” work for some fledgeling operation and not the most successful free to air channels in the UK?

I can’t think of any rational capitalist enterprise that would cannibalise a revenue stream for such frivolous reasons and those you put forward. The idea that they would only do so under the threat of Government regulation and not their own profit seeking motive is flawed.

Re: The future of television
 

This article presumes that the FAST channels will really catch on. It’ll be interesting to see. It is not difficult to envisage poorer households without the money to fork out for the streamers latching on to this, and if that is the case, perhaps the quality of the output will improve.

Interesting times.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/29/2...ubi-pluto-roku

[EXTRACT]

Free ad-supported platforms are the fastest-growing part of the streaming business right now, and services like Tubi, Pluto, and The Roku Channel are starting to assert themselves as power players in their own right. Many of these platforms have been around for years, quietly amassing big content libraries and millions of users. And now, as users look for cheaper ways to get their entertainment and studios look for better ways to monetize, they’re starting to make more noise.

The future of TV is free, it has ads, and it involves a lot of channel surfing. It’s a lot like the TV business of old, really. That’s actually kind of the point.

Re: The future of television
 

Once again you’re fundamentally misunderstanding that the pay-tv market is well developed, as is the free to air market. Television isn’t new. Delivering it over IP - if we actually get there - changes very little.

I’m not sure “poorer households” is anything other than a deliberate slur against people who consider the multitude of streaming services a large waste of money, just as around half of households in the UK didn’t have Sky or cable services when those peaked.

Streaming services don’t have an automatic right to the hard earned cash that makes up household disposable income. As they get increasingly more expensive as quality content gets ever more fragmented the bubble will burst for many.


---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------

Long live linear television.

I think he meant well.... People always make stupid/un-needed changes and stuff ends up worse.....

Re: The future of television
 

I’m misunderstanding nothing, we just have different views.

My reference to poorer households was not a slur at all, just a recognition that such households won’t be forking out for streamers.

I recognise also that there is a sizeable contingent of the population that steadfastly refuse to pay any more than the licence fee to watch TV.

With regard to your last paragraph, I’ve always believed that the streaming option will become less expensive with more choice over time. You can be reassured that the streamers are now considering the bundling of content with rival streamers. That should make streamers more accessible and bring us lower prices than paying for each streamer separately.

Re: The future of television
 

Whether you recognise your own misunderstand or not is irrelevant to whether you are or not.

I guess I should at least accept your recognition of the low cost streaming future being a myth as progress.

And quite right too if they feel that the ever increasing number of products in the marketplace offer poor value relative to other forms of entertainment.

There’s no basis for this prophecy any more than your 2035 one so forgive me for scoffing at your so-called “reassurance”.

Bundling of content - another benefit of “streamers” bites the dust as you need to buy content that you don’t want in order to get the content you do. Linear channels and bundles of content. Where have I seen that before. :rofl:

Re: The future of television
 

The golden age of streaming was when a Netflix & Amazon sub
combination was pretty much an all you can eat streaming buffet. Sadly, as with so many disruptive technologies, they start off as as something cheaper or better than the competition but then capitalism has its way and years later we're left with worse service or pricing than before it started.

Re: The future of television
 

The process is known as enshitification, and it occurs when the product designers who invented the thing, and formed the company to sell the thing, are replaced in the boardroom by your standard CEO with one eye on his bonus and the corporate accountant sitting on his shoulder.

Re: The future of television
 

That's pretty much how Sky Sports and BT Sport started off. Charge a modest fee at first to get lots of people on board. Then keep on hiking the price until you reach the sweet spot of subscriber numbers x subscription price giving you the maximum income.

Re: The future of television
 

At first Sky Sports was free, then became £5.99 with a half price offer for 3 months.

Adjusted for inflation Sky Sports would now be £12.75!

Re: The future of television
 

The Public Service Broadcasting remit…

Re: The future of television
 

You misunderstand my understanding, ol’ chap.

If we are talking about sport, I have acknowledged already that access to these events is too costly, but it’s not exactly cheap on Sky either. However, I think prices will come down as the markets consolidate.

As far as general entertainment goes, it has become much cheaper than to subscribe to Sky’s multi- channel packages and the choice is much greater, particularly when you factor in the ability to change streamers as often as every month.

The streamers are now talking to each other about consolidating or bundling different streamers to provide better choices at less cost for the consumer. The same will happen in the sports arena over time, probably sooner rather than later.


Nonsense, jfman. The Beeb is already well on the way in their planning for the replacement of their TV channels within a decade in favour of a streamer for example, and it is most likely that our existing broadcast system will be turned off in 2035. You’re just ignoring the facts to prolong your wet dream that the channels are here to stay forever. I’m afraid you are going to have to content yourself with a miriad of inferior FAST channels to feast on in the future. [/QUOTE]

That depends how they bundle it. As you know, bundling channels means more choice for less expenditure, which is how the multi-channel system on Sky works. Unfortunately, this system is falling apart due to the fact that so many programmes are going straight to the streamers, leaving the channels floundering to put anything decent on.

The streamer bundles will have plenty of choice with decent material. I dare say there will be the option to take just one streamer, or alternatively, the whole caboosh for a lower price than subscribing individually. We will have to see how that pans out.

Hopefully, there will also be subscriptions with ads options for those who cannot fork out too much on this or who simply don’t want to.

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

So? New legislation would fix that, but I have already said that it could still be made to work with the government paying content providers for showing the content they want people to have. This could be done programme by programme or a binding commitment between the provider and the government to show a given percentage of programmes of a given kind.

Re: The future of television
 

Describing a problem in reverse is not the same thing as producing a solution. ‘All they have to do is …’ is the age-old drone of the pub bore.

Re: The future of television
 

Do you have a link to that, please? The latest statement of direction (September 2023) I can find from the BBC (and ITV and Paramount) seems to contradict that, by stating they would, as part of the change of delivery method, still supply the existing channels over streaming…

https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2023...-streaming-age

Re: The future of television
 

So the choice is only greater (and cheaper) if you chop and change what products you have at a given time meaning you will have a reduced choice at any given time and instead by restricted to that one (or two) services taken at a given time.

It’s difficult to argue that represents better value if you have to reduce your convenience (or arrange your viewing by month depending on what you subscribe to).

That’s a roundabout way of saying “the streamers” are discussing their failing business models. They know, as well as the rest of this forum, there isn’t an appetite except (bizarrely) from you for the ever increasing fragmentation of the pay-tv market. “The streamers” can only dream of the economies of scale of traditional pay-tv platforms and jettisoning their failed business models are the first step towards changing that. However, there’s no evidence that it will increase choice (or reduce costs) to consumers in the marketplace.

Source?

I have to content myself with no such thing, OB. As a pay-tv subscriber with a traditional service and multiple (including international) streaming services my choices will be catered for regardless of outcome. Like a rational consumer in the marketplace I’ll go with the best products regardless of technology.

I’m not sitting there like a Scooby Doo villain with a spreadsheet thinking “aha! If I take Netflix and Discovery Plus in month one, Prime and Apple TV in month two… etc, keep Now TV for Sky Movies throughout I’ll be 100% streaming, pay more, have less convenience but I’ll prove those pesky kids on CF wrong!”

I’m completely agnostic as to what happens in the future. It’s your confusion, and dare I say deranged obsession, that keeps these threads going.

I don’t know what TV you watch OB but there’s plenty of choice on Sky. The only thing floundering is the revenue levels of the “streamers” hence their desperation to change the business model.

:rofl: it’ll be the premium subscriptions with unskippable ads before you know it. It’ll all one big rug pull but just you keep deluding yourself as you did with “no ads”, “low cost”, etc.

Re: The future of television
 

I’ve described an alternative means of ensuring the public service broadcasting can continue in line with emerging developments.

You are shrugging your shoulders and telling us nothing can be done. That’s not going to get us anywhere.

Re: The future of television
 

Who says we have anywhere to go?

You view linear television, which you struggle to define, as a problem to ‘solve’ despite the fact it’s watched by millions of people day in, day out, generating revenues and returning profits to shareholders.

Even going so far as propose Government intervention to either weaken public service broadcasting, mandate public service television over streaming or a combination of both.

The rest of us - rational consumers in the marketplace - are mere observers noting that in the absence of any meaningful benefit to the companies involved there is no reason to not continue all forms of broadcast across all technologies.

Re: The future of television
 

This was published in December 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...rector-general

[EXTRACT]

Davie said the BBC was committed to live broadcasting but Britons should prepare for the closure of many standalone channels and radio stations by the 2030s: “Over time this will mean fewer linear broadcast services and a more tailored joined-up online offer.”

The future will involve “bringing the BBC together in a single offer”, possibly in the form of one app combining everything from television programmes to local news coverage and educational material. This could ultimately see the end of distinct brands such as BBC One or BBC Radio 4, although the programmes they currently air could continue online.

I see Freely as being an intermediate step towards a streaming only future. I acknowledge that you see it differently.

---------- Post added at 09:08 ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 ----------

I accept that you have a mental block on any notion of change, jfman, so I am not going around in yet another circle. The arguments have all been had. Just stand back and watch what happens.

Re: The future of television
 

No mental block here, OB.

I’ve been clear throughout my view on how I think the market will evolve. Differently and much more slowly than your fanciful, and unevidenced, speculation that often involve claims of commitments from major players that haven’t actually been made, claims aren’t meaningfully binding and claims of unquantified savings from ending linear broadcasting.

Your absolutist view leaves you blind to the fact markets often evolve much more slowly, and ‘inferior’ technologies remain much more stubborn when they are the established standard, based on the real world habits (and spending) consumers actually do.

You say you don’t want to go round in circles yet the next digital marketing blog, or report paid for by a steaming conglomerate, promoting their own products over others will be held up as gospel that the end is nigh.

Re: The future of television
 

a) your source article appears to have been superseded by my more recent article

b) "fewer linear broadcast services" ≠ "no linear broadcast services"

Re: The future of television
 

TV can be an escape from whatever turmoil is going on in their lives, TV will be here for a long time.


It might change, and even have a Star Trek type holodeck version.

Re: The future of television
 

I have just skimmed through this 'discussion'.

Frankly I'm no wiser.I suspect I never will because everyone seems to be argu...discussing completely different issues.

So I'll bow out being no wiser.

Yea I see that alot Maggy.. Threads rarely stay on topic and bickering occurs and then staff gets mad and closes it....

Its hard to have a good CALM discussiom now... (On any site)

Re: The future of television
 

Ages ago I did read that eventually TV would be in the form of a hologram in the corner of the room!

Re: The future of television
 

A number of us have on multiple occasions tried to clearly define terms to no avail.

Re: The future of television
 

Currently in Bratislava watching the Scotland game on ITVX over a VPN. Not sure the rights holders would be happy but the benefits of the streaming future!

Re: The future of television
 

Given the way the scoreline looks, some of your fellow Scots may not see that as a benefit of streaming. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Fox has launched Tubi (add supported) streaming ap.