[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's the cost of making the programming that takes up most of the budget of operating a linear channel. The 'bother' of running a parallel linear channel to also show their content is negligible as the extra costs are negligible and the function can be automated.

As long as the extra ad revenue exceeds the low extra costs, I see no reason why they would drop this format for those that want to use it.

That is not at all correct, Richard - how did you make that out?

Clearly you don’t want to believe me. This is what Gemini says:

Running parallel traditional (terrestrial/satellite) and IP-only broadcasts is extremely costly. Maintaining dual infrastructures means paying twice for playout systems. Broadcasters must fund legacy hardware while simultaneously scaling cloud infrastructure, Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), and high egress fees to stream over the internet.The financial weight of this transition breaks down into key areas:

Hardware Redundancy: Traditional broadcasting requires expensive, dedicated uplink and satellite hardware. Running IP parallel requires a completely separate software-defined cloud and fiber ecosystem.

Scalability Expenses: Traditional broadcasts cost the same whether one or one million people watch. Internet (IP) delivery costs more as audiences grow, as broadcasters pay Content Delivery Networks based on how much data users download.

National Costs: Complete shifts require massive overhauls. For example, studies in the UK estimate a full switch to IP-only delivery could incur one-off costs of up to £2.1 billion, alongside £1 billion in ongoing annual costs.While a phased "hybrid" model allows broadcasters to safely test emerging technologies, keeping both legacy and IP workflows separate for too long leads to higher total distribution costs.

There are diminishing advertising revenue yields also as viewers using the traditional system move away into streaming.