[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Because now is not the future. Those figures will go down and with it, the quality programmes, which will lead to even more audience losses. That cannot continue forever. If you run a channel on a shoestring, do you honestly think there will be much on there worth seeing?

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 ----------



I get that prominence on the EPG has great significance, because at the moment, if you want to record a programme, that's where you go to record it. If you don't use VOD, that's how you select your programmes.

However, once the majority of people get more used to VOD, and assuming that programmes remain on there for longer (particularly the 'catch-up' programmes) their method of selecting programmes to watch will become different.

Cable operators have been doing VOD for twenty years. Even if “the majority” of homes stop naturally going to the EPG, that’s still millions of homes who do.

By the way, I have never said that the population will just voluntarily stop watching scheduled channels to achieve your 100% figure. I have said they will reduce to the extent that these channels will no longer be viable.

To the extent broadcast television ceases to be viable requires the vast, vast majority to do so voluntarily (90%+) without state intervention.

The transmitter switch-off is the most likely time that this change will be made. There really is no point in just shifting existing broadcasting methods to IPTV when programmes can be accessed in a more modern and convenient way.

See the thing is Old Boy, what you aren’t grasping, is that for millions of people sitting down, pressing the “power on” button and checking the EPG is convenient. Or at least, convenient enough to satisfy them for whatever time they plan on watching TV.

If we are really going to boil this down to maintaining the transmitter network (something that’s relatively cheap aggregated across all the channels who use it) then you are really clutching at straws.

You aren’t considering the cost to ISPs of shoving all this data through their networks or the cost in troubleshooting service issues for the end user. Is it their hardware (TV, iPad, router, the ISP), a wider issues with the streaming provider). That’s all fine if you’re dealing with someone who wants the technology - it’s a whole different ball game if you are dealing with someone who doesn’t want it, doesn’t need it and who is fundamentally going to ask if they are getting a better experience than before.

Not a single country in the world at present has any plans to switch off terrestrial broadcasting.

Of course, all of that assumes that Netflix do not have any plans to accommodate different scenarios. Although it may not be the preferred option, I am sure that Netflix must have strategies for the better monetisation of their assets if necessary.

I’m sure 20 years ago someone similarly naive would have been in the bowels of the internet telling us how AOL must have strategies for world domination and how they couldn’t possibly fail.

You say I am inflexible in my views when I am simply challenging the fixed beliefs that keep coming through on these threads that nothing will ever change. I am only pointing out the logical outcome to existing trends.

You’re the only person in these threads who keeps posting the same message ad infinitum that the world will turn out the way you want to see it and that’s that.

Your application of existing trends is not logical - simple use of the word doesn’t legitimise your analysis. Consumer behaviour doesn’t work in the way you believe it does and actually once the low hanging fruit have moved over it can be far more resistant to change than you believe it to be.