Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
The costs of running a channel as opposed to uploading programmes onto on demand or having them streamed must be considerable.
|
All this time, and it turns out you actually don't know ...
Costs are, of course, entirely relative. It may cost more to broadcast your content across the airwaves where any one of 35 million households can find it simply by switching their TV on (as opposed to just hiding it on a server somewhere until someone comes looking), but the trade-off is that vast numbers of casual viewers result in an attractive prospect for advertisers. The net cost is therefore not nearly so high.
Quote:
|
And it is more convenient for the consumer.
|
It is more convenient for you, and other consumers who share your pattern of TV usage. It is not more convenient for "the" consumer, which is an all-encompassing term which would include myself, and the many other people who have spent the past several weeks patiently and repeatedly explaining to you that we don't want to pay for a streaming service, we don't mind TV adverts, and that a curated, linear TV schedule is actually, for millions of people, the most convenient means of accessing casual entertainment after a hard day at work.
Quote:
|
The increasing access to technology and growing viewer confidence in using it, together with diminishing income from advertising and the licence fee will seal the fate of the broadcast channels in time.
|
it really won't. Not in my lifetime. But we've been here before.
