[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by epsilon

Ok, in your opinion, some V6 features are minor. Here's the thing.. your opinion doesn't matter, it won't have any impact on individuals deciding to ditch Virgin if the V6 is withdrawn and the features are no longer available. They won't come to you for a consultation, they won't ask how their departure ties in with your 2035 fantasy. What you think simply isn't relevant.

I'm not sure there are any actual questions being asked. You just feel the need to inject your opinion into the discussion when it is neither here nor there and won't have any impact on what these people decide to do.

Absolutely, my opinions don’t matter at the end of the day, and neither do yours.

I think you just don’t like opinions that are different from your own. OK….

---------- Post added at 18:45 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I don’t recall ever having read the electricity reason in relation to streaming services, not from the “getting enough” standpoint anyway, from a “cost of delivery” angle I’ve read it occasionally, because the more simultaneous streams needed the higher the cost. The streams are inefficient for live content, but obviously necessary for on-demand non-live content.

It’s just a comment Chris made some years back. I’ve not read that anywhere else.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I have taken account of the mobile industry’s desire/need for their services to take current TV transmission bandwidth, that’s why I think “5G Broadcast” makes sense for the live (particularly PSB) services that remain when the rest inevitably shut down. It would mean everyone with a device (be that TV, tablet or phone) would utilise the same emission in the mast coverage range, which is much more efficient than a large number of streams for delivery to each individual.

That the UK broadcasters seem to be going down the standard tech route of delivering a large number of streams for live content, rather than the 5G Broadcast route many other countries are planning for, seems daft to me.

I think you are right there, cheeky, but I see no sign at present of our broadcasters going down that route. If they do so decide, it will be a relief for some.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

OB you seem to think we differ on how the end point will look in the general scheme of things, but we don’t, I just think it’s further down the line and will need to be done differently in order to be achieved, and to be achieved for everyone. That’s why I wrote this at the end of the post you quoted, maybe I wrote so much you didn’t notice.
—> “The future will be live content and on-demand, mostly the latter.”

I know, and I’m conscious of that comment. But I think when Sky go over wholly to IPTV, the rest will soon follow. Sky is promoting Sky Stream quite heavily now and it appears that the Sky Q box will be phased out in the near future.

Both the BBC and ITV promote their streamers all the time and want people to watch their programmes on them as much as possible. That’s why they make their regular channels appear as a less attractive alternative option than their players. For example, both allow their TV series to be loaded with all episodes available straight away, whereas on scheduled TV you have to plod through week by week. ITVX now even lets you watch its originals months before they screen on their channels.

I think there’s a reason for that - they want to shut down their channels sooner rather than later.