Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
It’s your own post I was referring to where you “asked Gemini”. Not a single cost of maintaining the old systems that millions of people use, day in, day out, and the Green Paper anticipates 1.5 million households will use exclusively in 2035 without state intervention.
No need to take anything up with the author of any article - they’re not in this thread using it as an argument for the point you are making.
|
The argument I am making is simple - no need to complicate it. TV will be IP only after 2035 unless the government provides support to fund running the two systems alongside each other.
1.5 million households will not be using the channels via terrestrial if the channels no longer exist!
The 1.5 million households relate to the number that will need assistance of some sort to watch TV via IP.
It’s you wanting the full financial details. Again, my point was simple. It’s too expensive to run the two systems side by side. If you’re querying that, it’s up to you to disprove it with your own figures if you want to argue about it. Do your own research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Rubbish, OB. The definition is fine.
It is your (many) goal post shifts over the years and refusal to define your terms that has derailed many of the discussions. No doubt when linear television and DTT survive to 2044 you’ll claim you meant a third magical definition of “less” DTT channels.
|
As usual, you are just being argumentative. I’m not querying the definition of ‘linear’, I’m simply saying that the term was used by the critics on here to try to disprove the points I was making. TV channels or streaming/on demand. That’s clear to most people. But you and your ilk just try to use a particular word that I use to describe our conventional TV channels (and widely used by the media press) to destroy the whole argument. It’s pathetic, mate.
You know very well what the argument is about. I don’t need to explain further.