Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
We are all expressing our opinions, epsilon, and it isn’t a ‘fact’ that our traditional channels will remain in any form after 2035. Sure, you believe that they will, and maybe they will. But you cannot cite that as a ‘fact’. It is your opinion, and nothing wrong with that.
Only time will tell whose opinion is right.
|
Again, sticking with the facts. I originally posted a list of channel service IDs used on Freely which use a new DVB over IP method of delivery which will eventually replace the DVB T/T2 transmission method.
That is a fact, data is not an opinion.
You stated that this wasn't what you had read (hardly surprising as the Freely specs aren't in the public domain). You attempted to ask your buddy, the AI bot, in an attempt to verify your opinion. Your question was misleading and you misinterpreted the reply. When your AI conversation was analysed by Google AI it responded: "
The phrasing was misleading: The statement that "parallel DVB over IP... is intended as a transition rather than a permanent fix" was poorly worded. It should have been more explicit about distinguishing between the parallel
service (transitional) and the underlying IP
technology (permanent)."
Asking specific questions to both Google AI and your buddy ChatGPT concluded that a new channel based infrastructure is being developed for continuity (of linear channels) after the transmitter network closes. A reminder again that your favoured AI proclaimed:
Strategic Goal:
Everyone TV and UK regulators are aiming for a
"DTT-equivalent" experience over IP that is:
- Free
- Reliable
- Linear (live channel-based)
- Discoverable (via EPG)
- Universally accessible (across smart TVs and future devices)
Once this is achieved at national scale,
that system becomes the new permanent baseline.
The aim is to create a DTT-equivalent experience over IP. Do you not see the part highlighted in blue? it says that the plan is for
Linear (live channel-based) content.
A strategic goal is not an opinion.
You opened the door to AI generated answers, claiming "I asked my good friend AI, which has proved remarkably accurate with the various questions I’ve asked, often confirmed later by professionals I have asked."
So why do you not accept what your good friend is now spelling out for you? A good example of confirmation bias perhaps.
Let's have a look at the AI comment: "Everyone TV and UK regulators are aiming for a
"DTT-equivalent""
, specifically mentioning linear channels.
The owners of Everyone TV are the broadcasters. Therefore it is the broadcasters themselves planning a future for the continuity of linear channels.
Your experiment with AI was not a good representation of an analytical mind. You failed to realise that asking if parallel services are transitional would inevitably result in "yes" as a reply. Which is why I went back to your AI source and got it to break down the detail, establishing that the new DVB over IP infrastructure is a permanent replacement for terrestrial DVB.
Again, not an opinion.
Chat GPT rephrased my DVB over IP term as "DVB-like over IP" I didn't dwell on that in my reply on here as it was just ChatGPT covering for its lack of a source to back up the actual format. I actually tied it down on that too, showing it some of the Freely metadata which I can't post on here. On examining the metadata, it replied: The IP infrastructure used by Freely seems to be formally DVB-compliant or DVB-derived, not merely DVB-like.
That is a problem you will have in trying to access the information, it isn't readily available, isn't indexed in search engines and isn't available to AI unless you specifically give it access.
To sum up, I don't deal with opinion and speculation, only with facts derived from analysis of data and metadata and information received from industry contacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
...it isn’t a ‘fact’ that our traditional channels will remain in any form after 2035. Sure, you believe that they will, and maybe they will. But you cannot cite that as a ‘fact’.
|
I don't "believe" anything. The fact is that the main broadcasters are building a DVB over IP infrastructure specifically to allow channels to continue in the (post 2035) post terrestrial transmitter world. If they only planned for an on-demand platform, this wouldn't be needed or included in it. It would have been far simpler, and cheaper, to build a HbbTV OpApp platform, solely for on-demand apps, without the expense of building a DVB over IP channel platform for it.
That IS a fact.
Other than that, if the intention had been to discontinue channels with the demise of terrestrial transmitters, it would only have been necessary to support the existing DVB T/T2 services in the interim period. PSBs simply don't have enough cash to invest in something they don't plan to keep.
And that's all from me for the foreseeable future as I part company with the forum to concentrate on actual industry events. For those who know me and need to contact me, you know where I am...