[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ah, I’m also clueless on the government’s position, am I? Are you now turning this on its head and arguing that they actually have a position? The government doesn’t have a clue what they are going to do about this, which I thought you had acknowledged yourself!

Again, you are reading into my posts (or deliberately twisting them) that are not there. I absolutely did not say the government would compensate - I made it absolutely clear that they didn’t have the money to compensate broadcasters, and that therefore, the broadcasters would get what they wanted (ie, IPTV only).

Hmmm! if that was your interpretation of my post I can see why you are totally confused by what is happening in the industry. Yes, you made it absolutely clear that the government don't have the cash for compensation. My point was where did you get the idea that any compensation would be necessary? There isn't a contractual relationship with the infrastructure providers that would merit any sort of compensation in whatever scenario you have imagined. In short, Arqiva is a commercial operator operating a private business. It isn't a government contractor likely to seek compensation.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Actually, no, I’m looking for alternative scenarios that actually make sense in the light of what we can see happening with our own eyes. The government prevaricates (has no money)

A red herring. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate obfuscation or just your lack of understanding of how things work. The government doesn't need any money, they don't fund any of this, the commercial operators do.

Aquiva is looking at a way of modernising the system (which won’t solve the problem of diminishing profits as key viewers continue to migrate to streaming)

Surely Arqiva (which is the correct spelling) know their business better than you do. If they think it is worth modernising, then surely it is.

the broadcasters want to broadcast via one, not two systems….all the evidence is there that DTT will not be available after 2035 without government intervention, which will cost money if they want to preserve the methods of the past.

Investment that would already have been forthcoming if the government stopped sitting on their hands and came up with an actual plan for the future of PSBs and broadcasting in general.
The Telegraph's theory of broadcasters only wanting one system doesn't fly. Even with 405 line and analogue switch offs they ran dual systems for many years for better continuity of service. Same with the medium wave switch off, where services have continued for years with only a handful of listeners. Costs there are phenomenal, very high power transmitters and only carrying a single service. Remember that DTT transmitters each carry a multiplex with dozens of services, so the cost per service is relatively low. Same again with DAB radio, why aren't they broadcasters pressing to shut down the FM transmitters? As I said, the one system theory simply doesn't fly. It's not what is happening in the rest of the broadcasting world.

My view has not shifted from what I said 10 years ago, and I see everything developing the way I said it would. I’m not looking for confirmation.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on your views? Not looking for confirmation? the evidence from many years of your posts demonstrates otherwise.

---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Is it worth all the evangelical ' only my view matters' zeal though OB? It's only tv. You have one view , other have theirs. Accept to differ? Then go and do something worthwhile. Food banks always need volunteers and they don't argue about the future of TV...

Evangelising his opinion is understandable if pointless, especially as he seems to be a lone voice. It's the Violet Elizabeth tantrums when people don't agree with him that really annoy me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXiZHXkG-ac