[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are not going to win an argument by rubbishing the source of links that confirm that a statement or position put forward is actually correct. That is a sure sign that the author disputing that point of view does not have any evidence to support the alternative they are advocating. This theme is splashed all over the media, including broadcast media, and it’s a fact that broadcasters don’t want to keep using DTT. It’s simply too expensive with the diminishing audience that is viewing in this way, and their view is that maintaining channels as well as streamers is an unnecessary expense.

The situation I have outlined will change only if the government intervenes. But do they have the money to compensate for the maintenance of an increasingly uneconomic system? Well, I suspect you know the answer to that one.

As for pensioners and any other non-tech savvies, even I can come up with a solution to that one that my late granny could use, and she didn’t even like to change a channel. It’s not hard! Just give them a box with the free on demand streamers on it and enable a setting which delivers a pre-set streamer each time you switch on if necessary. It can then go straight into a selection of programming from that streamer without pressing any further buttons if required. Remote controls could also enable switching streamers in the same way that some are already available with the Netflix button on it, for example.

The industry would pay that to achieve a DTT switch off and it could be part of a revised PSB remit.

That is more likely to be the type of intervention the government makes, and the broadcasters will accept that.

If you find any recent information that contradicts this post, please do provide it - I am all ears.

It doesn't really matter what I say as you only take note of anything that suits your outlook and disregard the rest. That's been obvious to everyone for a while. I'll continue to deal with the facts rather than the musings of an obsessive crank.
One thing to note though, you are somewhat clueless as to the government's position in this (I'm being kind ). Government compensation for an increasingly uneconomic system? Why? they have no responsibility for the infrastructure. The only reason for the uncertainty is the rolling licence system favoured by the government in this country, it brings uncertainty. Come up with an actual plan and the infrastructure providers (Arqiva etc) will fund and provide it. The reality is they aren't going to fund anything with no plans in place and no return on their investment. So now the government are putting out feelers for what they should do next. Studies such as the Coleago one are coming back with possible solutions such as keeping a terrestrial system with more advanced codecs such as HEVC and VVC, which could carry more services per multiplex. Another suggestion is more utilisation of SFN networks, which would reduce the spectrum needed but wouldn't be great for regional services. It probably escaped your attention but government funding of transmitter infrastructure ended many years ago with the abolition of the IBA.