Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
|
Of course it does, and I’ve been stressing this for a while. Extending Freeview beyond 2034 comes with a cost that the government would have to pay, because the TV channels sure don’t want to pay it, and the government has no money.
---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:25 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss
Free aerial TV, the way millions of us have watched for over two decades, is being lined up for retirement in favour of telly delivered over your broadband.
soon as I read that the post lost all credibility and I could no longer read it. Over 2 decades more like 9 decades (BBC started broadcasting TV in 1936 1 hour in the afternoon and 1 hour in the evening )
|
You just have to look at how streaming has taken off.
The government’s job now is to ensure that the sections of the population who can’t get their heads around streaming have access made simpler, by leaning on the streamers.
I think in the end the main problem will be getting everyone hooked up to broadband - there is a notable resistance out there, and one issue that needs resolving is how impoverished people are going to be able to pay for broadband. That’s a tricky one.
---------- Post added at 21:32 ---------- Previous post was at 21:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
That ‘news’ article could have been written by OB himself. 
It’s full of confirmation bias (as well as affiliate links), and you only have to go a few paragraphs down to establish that el gov has merely published a green paper. Even when one of these contains a preferred option, the whole point of a green paper is to start a high-level discussion around general concepts. If they had a workable plan to actually end Freeview in 2034 it would be in a white paper, and even that is somewhere short of a bill for discussion and passing as an Act of Parliament.
|
Not guilty, sire!