[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TVWatcher

Highly unlikely, the biggest "adverse reaction" would be from Sky, ITV, Five and Channel 4 who would not welcome the competition for advertising money.

Yes, but the likes of Sky can't dictate to the BBC or the government how the funding is set up. The commercial channels complain about the unfair advantage the BBC has with the amount of money collected from the licence fee, so they can't legitimately complain when the government puts in place a commercial alternative.

BBC Store was first announced in October 2013. It needed no special insight for you to predict it in January 2015. Also the Store adds nothing to what's long been available via iTunes, save the BBC branding.

I haven't claimed any 'special insight'. I was responding to Harry, who appeared to be questioning the suggestion that the BBC would ever make its programmes available on this basis. The fact of BBC Store shows that I was right to mention it. I am not claiming to have mystical powers to foretell the future!

You also said - in your very first post on this thread

I was referring to what others were saying, actually.

which suggests you have never really understood the terms your using - on demand and live streaming are not the same thing.

You can watch last night's EastEnders on demand from the iPlayer but when you're watching something that's happening now or using iPlayer to watch the episode which is also currently being shown on BBC One it's streaming.

I would question your definitions, but whatever, this interesting subject about the future has been dogged by nitpicking and it is taking the focus off the subject. I think most people reading this thread know exactly wha I am talking about.

Maybe if you stuck to the widely accepted and understood definitions of these two very different words people would find it easier to follow your claim?

I assume you have been reading other articles on the web which are using exactly the same terminology. Linear channels are widely understood to refer to our traditional broadcast channels, however this and other references I've made may annoy you.

One thing you have repeatedly said is that on demand services will make traditional broadcasters' business financially unviable but now you seem to be saying they'll remain but as streamed services?

Again, you are twisting what I have said. It's the traditional chanels that I am saying will ultimately disappear, not organisations such as Sky or ITV. They will simply move to VOD.

But if you are, I've already shown you how streaming is MORE expensive than broadcasting via DSAT and DTT for the channel operator where the costs are fixed regardless of how many are watching.

That is irrelevant. The fact is, watching content by VOD is becoming more popular and all the channels are focussing more on that side of things now. Why would they wish to add to their costs by duplicating all of this on conventional channels? They would only do this if the advertising revenue made it sensible to do so. As more people move over to VOD to get their content, advertising revenue from our conventional channels will decline.

Perhaps the best way forward would be if you typed a single post restating your case, remembering to use on demand and streaming correctly?

Suspect it would help clear a lot of this up. Or at least clarify where you're wrong.

Sorry, TV Watcher, but if this thread is confusing you, I don't know what else I can say that will clarify matters for you. The definitions I have used are pretty interchangeable, for example, you can refer to live VOD or live streaming, both of which are linear, just like our conventional broadcast channels. Most resders of this thread don't want to read about the technical terms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand