[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

Once we get past your Martin Luther King tribute act capitalism strikes any “anything is possible” rhetoric as it crashes to earth over the stumbling blocks of reality.

It’s not for others to prove known challenges it’s for you to offer solutions.

Broadband infrastructure in the UK will not support what you suggest in the timeframe you suggest it.

Where have I said I’m unhappy? Certainly, I dislike having to pay for TV channels when I get most content from streamers, but that is a temporary bugbear.

I’ve already pointed to the post where you indicate that you are unhappy with the status quo. It seems incredible that you seem to think that your own narrow viewing preferences should mandate the wholesale redesign of how the television market works.

I am well aware that you also subscribe to streamers, which frankly appears to be a contradiction for you as you moan about them all the time.

I’m a rational consumer in the marketplace. I like Pepsi Max that doesn’t require me to preach the quality of PepsiCo branded products or call for the withdrawal from sale of competing products (essentially, what you are doing here.

don’t know why it is that you cannot see that if I ditch the TV channels, I will be saving money! I have the Maxit package with Sky Cinema, by the way.

Yet you don’t ditch them, despite telling us how awful they are. If you, a supposedly rational actor in the marketplace, maintain Maxit for “one or two” programmes what makes you think millions of other Virgin, or Sky, customers would not or could not do the same? To the tune of hundreds of millions in revenue.

Or that those who don’t want (or can’t afford) subscription services wouldn’t take their eyeballs (and thus advertising revenue) to competing offerings where a linear channel does close?

Your arguments sound desperate to me. Why are you telling me that some streamers also carry ‘live’ TV? Do you not realise that most people know that, and what’s it got to do with anything? We are in a transitional period and so of course, like Freely, we are being offered the choice. That will not last, of course, but I understand you cannot get your head around that.

Once again it’d be helpful if you could define linear television.

I remain uncertain what the “transition” is if these multi-billion dollar companies are maintaining high costs to provide a service it’s unclear to me how they deliver shareholder arbitrarily withdrawing it. Occam’s razor suggests the costs are low, and it drives product value to end users who, evidence suggests, actually watch it in not insignificant numbers.

As for your last comment, if TV channels are switched off, that choice will no longer exist. Just ask the ITV CEO!

If your auntie had balls… as they say.