I don’t think I’m misunderstanding your position at all. I’m simply pointing out the inconsistencies within it. A streamer going out their way to create an ad driven service (presumably at additional cost?) = good. A linear channel maintaining a presence - to every television in the land regardless of internet connectivity at low cost = bad/uneconomic.
I’m still yet to see you quantify how much is actually saved in this process. None of the BBC examples count as they each involve a reduction or increase in commissioned content. I’ve always been clear my statements are in relation to maintaining linear in addition to the same content being streamed.
---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
Broadband isn't and never will be as reliable as a tv signal.
|
Didn’t you hear the Tory leadership candidate that promised full fibre for all by 2025?
Oh yeah he became PM, watered it down to gigabit capable and only 85%, £5bn became £1.2bn in the current spending review. Anyway on the whole he left a lot to be desired and they binned him.