The future of television

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Exactly, so I was right about that.

LOL, you dont get any brownie points for that - it was not exactly hard to predict, and as noted, a national plan.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

In any case, the streamers could surely do the same - release one episode per week until the whole series of a new original appears.

They could do this dropping an episode a week of one programme at 8pm on a Monday, another at 9pm, another at 10pm... And so on in sequence.

Realising they have some spare airtime they could run trailers, or sell adverts. They could even break up the programme itself - giving the advantage of the captive viewer to sell to advertisers.

Once they've done this for say, um, 168 hours a week they could publish the sequence in which programming can be viewed first run or, if required, repeat showings to pad it out a bit. They could even explore innovative ways to supply content advertising funded, perhaps to non-subscribers, if only such a transmission system existed that people could receive such programming by default. Broadcast, if you like, into their living rooms in an accessible form. Like you just switched on your TV and it's there.

Streamers (aside from Netflix) often do release one episode per week.
The difference is that once released, you can watch it whenever you want, without having to record it.

[jfman]

If we are going as low as superfast (using the greater than 30 megabits definition) in 2014 the UK had 85-90% coverage. More than enough to stream high definition television at that time and develop a market of over 20 million households.

The notion that there is some kind of “game changer” in terms of progress in content delivery that’s more likely to fall in the next decade than the last one is flawed.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

LOL, you dont get any brownie points for that - it was not exactly hard to predict, and as noted, a national plan.

You’re right, but I had a fair number of detractors back then.

I’m not asking for any brownie points, anyhow. I’m just saying what I think. Either I’m right or wrong - no big deal.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

They could do this dropping an episode a week of one programme at 8pm on a Monday, another at 9pm, another at 10pm... And so on in sequence.

Realising they have some spare airtime they could run trailers, or sell adverts. They could even break up the programme itself - giving the advantage of the captive viewer to sell to advertisers.

Once they've done this for say, um, 168 hours a week they could publish the sequence in which programming can be viewed first run or, if required, repeat showings to pad it out a bit. They could even explore innovative ways to supply content advertising funded, perhaps to non-subscribers, if only such a transmission system existed that people could receive such programming by default. Broadcast, if you like, into their living rooms in an accessible form. Like you just switched on your TV and it's there.

Haha, you never give up, do you? This is a real Monty Python experience.

Maybe the streamers will also issue subscribers with a free fake portable aerial to put on their TV sets, just to make people of a nervous disposition feel safe….

Maybe they could also reduce picture quality during very hot weather and when it rains heavily so you can kid yourself nothing’s changed.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

If we are going as low as superfast (using the greater than 30 megabits definition) in 2014 the UK had 85-90% coverage. More than enough to stream high definition television at that time and develop a market of over 20 million households.

H’mmm. Maybe you should revisit what was being said at the time.

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The notion that there is some kind of “game changer” in terms of progress in content delivery that’s more likely to fall in the next decade than the last one is flawed.

It’s not flawed when you consider that there were still a lot of households who received either no or inadequate broadband speeds. This was the big reason quoted on here as why the channels would never be closed down. Lack of electricity to support streaming was also quoted!

[jfman]

The straw man army has new recruits.

As ever you either missed, potentially intentionally, the point being made. That which you are unable or unwilling to answer.

Why will the next decade be different from the last? The tech is in place to support the streaming market for the vast, vast, majority of UK households. The economics are now less favourable - they’re no longer minor add ons, often supplementing the existing pay-tv services among those households who do subscribe. They’re becoming higher cost at a time they’re investing ever decreasing amounts in content.

The biggest issue for your vision is that rational consumers in the marketplace continue to watch live, linear television. Whether they’ve had access to on demand content and hard drive recorders for twenty years. They still watch.

You come up with ludicrous ways for “the streamers” to accommodate the viewing habits of rational viewers (dropping programme once a week) for example that contradicts the viewing habits of the average streaming viewer (to binge). Neither can a streamer command when someone is likely to first watch in the same manner as a linear broadcaster who dictates the time. Streaming still needs the “content aggregator” and someone else to develop the user interface that none of them rationally would want to sign up to.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

The straw man army has new recruits.

As ever you either missed, potentially intentionally, the point being made. That which you are unable or unwilling to answer.

Why will the next decade be different from the last?

And blah, blah, blah.

[jfman]

You say that OB, but you never address the points made to you. Instead opting for some perverse argument nobody made. For example these:

Maybe the streamers will also issue subscribers with a free fake portable aerial to put on their TV sets, just to make people of a nervous disposition feel safe….

Maybe they could also reduce picture quality during very hot weather and when it rains heavily so you can kid yourself nothing’s changed.

The difference here is that no rational person would watch an image with poor picture quality. You view linear television, and anyone that watches it, with the same disdain despite the fact that the ratings objectively show that it remains an extremely popular way for rational consumers in the marketplace to watch television, and rational advertisers in the marketplace to reach eyeballs.

[RichardCoulter]

It's a lot cheaper to broadcast to each viewer via DTT than streaming.

The only way that DTT will be switched off (partially or fully) is if too few people use it to make it viable to continue or if the Government decide they want the spectrum to be used for something else.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's a lot cheaper to broadcast to each viewer via DTT than streaming.

The only way that DTT will be switched off (partially or fully) is if too few people use it to make it viable to continue or if the Government decide they want the spectrum to be used for something else.

As I said before, the decision will be made by the broadcasters unless the government intervenes.

I really can’t see broadcasters not wanting to take advantage of simply uploading streams than going to the bother of scheduling.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As I said before, the decision will be made by the broadcasters unless the government intervenes.

I really can’t see broadcasters not wanting to take advantage of simply uploading streams than going to the bother of scheduling.

And as the rest of us said before, you’re wrong.

Public Service Broadcasters distribute where government tells them because it’s part of the licensing terms (or charter terms in the BBC’s case). They don’t get to decide to end DTT broadcast and wait for government to intervene. They must continue to broadcast via DTT unless and until a change in regulation permits them not to.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As I said before, the decision will be made by the broadcasters unless the government intervenes.

I really can’t see broadcasters not wanting to take advantage of simply uploading streams than going to the bother of scheduling.

That's why Ofcom has proposed three options to be investigated

1. Investment in a more efficient DTT service – a more efficient, but full DTT service could be an option if audience scale and investment could be sustained over the 2030s. This option may well include supporting audiences with new equipment for more efficient broadcast signals.

2. Reducing DTT to a core service – the DTT platform could retain a minimum number of core channels – for example the main public service and news channels. This would mean viewers mainly using the internet to access TV services, while also maintaining infrastructure that could deliver radio or TV, including if there are internet outages. It could be done as a temporary transition to a fuller switch off or remain indefinitely as a provider of last resort.

3. Move towards DTT switch-off in the longer term – a planned campaign to ensure people are confident and connected with internet services, so DTT could be switched off. It would take careful planning to ensure universality of public service media, with support for people so that no-one is left behind. This could have wider benefits for digital inclusion in other areas of society.

Considering the needs of all audiences must be at the heart of any chosen approach, and our report today signals no preference for any particular option. In all cases, the broadcast and broadband industries would need to work with Government to set a common vision for how to deliver universal TV services in future, followed by detailed planning. An inclusive transition would take 8-10 years, so it is welcome that Government is considering these issues now so industry can be ready for any changes by the early 2030s.

ButbutbutOfcomProjectKangaroo

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

And as the rest of us said before, you’re wrong.

Public Service Broadcasters distribute where government tells them because it’s part of the licensing terms (or charter terms in the BBC’s case). They don’t get to decide to end DTT broadcast and wait for government to intervene. They must continue to broadcast via DTT unless and until a change in regulation permits them not to.

This will be addressed in the consultation period, so the broadcasters will have their say, and it’s as plain as day what they are advocating.

Anyhow, that’s beside the point, I have been making it very clear that this will only happen if the government decides not to intervene.

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

That's why Ofcom has proposed three options to be investigated

Thank you.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I have been making it very clear that this will only happen if the government decides not to intervene..

You have been making it very clear that you still don’t understand the government’s role in setting the PSB licensing regime.