Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Yea I hear ya General!!
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
My thumb has blisters from endlessly clicking through about 100 channels in search of something remotely interesting . . and if I do find something the adverts appear 20 seconds later :mad: If we stopped making 90 channels of dross, the money saved could be used to produce better quality programs on what's left. Another huge advantage would be the amount of no-name 'celebrities' who would suddenly find they have to get a bloody job instead of being paid to be on TV shows that are simply a filler between adverts. *first post since returning from a self imposed exile for a month or so |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
I think I know where the 2035 date has come from; i've been told that this is when the contract for Arqiva to supply transmission facilities for the BBC expires. I've read an article by the BBC that says that the BBC intend to move over to internet delivery long term. I'll see if I can find it, if not i'll ask a contact who will know. There are now more people with some sort of internet access capable of streaming live TV available to them than there is Freeview coverage. I doubt it's a coincidence either that the two largest ISP's (Sky & BT) are also broadcasters.
In practice, I think that one PSB DTT mux will remain for some time after the rest of the frequencies have been sold off to the mobile phone companies. I imagine that people who complain about this will be told that they still have more channels than the analogue system that DTT replaced at DSO. The internet isn't perfect and they will need to be able to get messages out to the public in an emergency, don't know if this is still the case, but there was a provision in the law that allows the Government to make the BBC the mouthpiece of the Government in such an emergency. I think that, long term, this will apply to satellite delivery too. Sky have just signed a new contract with SES for their satellite capacity for another five years. This is much shorter than their previous agreements. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Someone states today "I won’t drink any alcohol after today". Next day, someone spots them having a beer, and they say "I didn’t mean immediately after yesterday!". Sure, Jan... |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014-0...r-the-internet |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
As there is an ambition to eventually get high-speed data connections into every British home, IP delivery makes sense in the long run. There are various logistical challenges to overcome though, not least of which is ensuring the national grid has enough juice to power data networks that would be working exponentially harder than they do today. And, lest we forget, if BBC One transmits its schedule over IP, with the News at 6, something with Nick Knowles at 8, drama at 9 and the news again at 10 ... that is still linear TV, regardless of what they're using to get the programme from their studio to your home. |
Re: The future of television
Something from another thread last year, but relevant to this.
The future of DTT from The House of Lords Select Committee on Communications and Digital - 1st Report of Session 2019 - published 5th November 2019. https://publications.parliament.uk/p...muni/16/16.pdf Pages 64-65 Quote:
The relevance is that, at the moment, if you have a TV and an aerial (indoor or outdoor), you can watch Freeview TV at no extra expense, and with very little fuss (except for occasionally retuning the TV, and sometimes fiddling with the aerial if internal). At the moment, 82% of the UK population have Broadband Access (not Internet Access, as people can have that through their smartphones) - under the IPTV delivery method (be it broadcast channels or SVOD, it's irrelevant), anyone without Broadband would be denied access to Freeview TV. First issue, additional expense in purchasing Fixed Broadband so you can watch Freeview TV. Next, if, like a lot of people, you have multiple TVs in your house, again, all you currently need is an aerial socket, or like me, the TVs in our bedroom and one of the other bedrooms just have a set-top aerial. If we had IP/Broadband delivered TV, people would need the wifi to be good enough, or network sockets, in those rooms. Second issue, additional cost in setting up appropriate network/wifi connectivity to other TVs - especially in older houses with thick walls. Then, what happens if the Broadband goes down? - no TV. At the moment, if our Broadband goes down, we just go to the Digital channels, and carry on watching (if the programme is on Freeview, obviously). Or, over-utilisation or interference in your area could affect the quality of the programmes you are watching, due to the bandwidth being negatively affected/disrupted - remember the story late last year about a village having 18 months of slow speeds because of an old TV? Third issue, if you lose your internet connection (or have it degraded), poor quality or no Freeview TV. |
Re: The future of television
This supports my view that one mux will remain for PSB channels for the foreseeable future; that doesn't neccesarily mean that Freeview will deliver anywhere near the number of channels it does today though.
In fact, the number of channels will reduce either this year or next year when Com7 is closed. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Nope. Those particular goalposts were shifted so far even the pie shop was offside.
|
Re: The future of television
I don't understand the last two posts, aren't they the same thing ie linear TV is linear TV whether broadcast over the internet or the airwaves?
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:07. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.