The future of television

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

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

Not correct, but in any case I would point out the the government makes laws and it can also change them, so it’s a moot point.

Once again I’m just telling you how I see it. I fully understand that you disagree.

[OLD BOY]

https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/majority-w...cted-from-axe/

[EXTRACTS]

The Digital Poverty Alliance (DPA) – a UK-based charity dedicated to addressing the digital divide and combating digital exclusion across vulnerable communities – is calling on the government to give long-term protection to the UK’s free-to-air terrestrial TV service, as new research finds strong support (73%) for retaining it and low awareness that its future is under threat.

Ministers are currently examining the future of TV distribution ahead of a decision on whether to continue Freeview.

Findings include:

90% value terrestrial TV for ensuring people who cannot afford expensive monthly bills have universal access to information and entertainment
75% agree that terrestrial TV helps reduce loneliness
73% believe that terrestrial TV should be protected well beyond 2035
85% say that terrestrial TV is important to help understand history and traditions
70% of the public feel reassured knowing that terrestrial TV is there as a backup
More than 2/3 of people (69% are unaware that terrestrial TV is under threat



In 2024, free-to-air broadcasters and regulator Ofcom warned of a tipping point in terms of the viability of terrestrial TV broadcasts. The BBC highlighted the increasing cost of terrestrial TV per user. It also put a question mark over whether or not it could justify the ongoing expenditure.

Commercial multiplex operators are already struggling to fill capacity as channels switch to streaming instead. The BBC has so far refused to commit to maintaining terrestrial TV services. The broadcast licence for one of its digital terrestrial TV multiplexes expires next year.

What the public say they want and what they’ll get may be two different things.

It seems to me that the operators want to move on to IP based systems, which means that streaming is bound to take over. The question is, by when? If the operators get their way, it’ll be sometime between 2030 and 2035, and only government intervention will change that. But is the government prepared to meet the costs of retaining terrestrial in these cash-strapped times?

Then, of course, there is the added pressure from the industry to use the bandwidth currently used for TV to provide more 5G services.

My own view (others are free to disagree) is that the government should accept the way the industry is going, but add a requirement that there must be a means by which non-tech savvy pensioners can access easily those services they actually want. If the industry is charged with that requirement, they would be able to act collectively to ensure the changes the government requires are realised. It shouldn’t be too big an ask.

The other barrier is broadband services, so perhaps an increase in the state pension for the poorest should be implemented to the value of a basic broadband service. Additionally, any remaining ‘not spots’ should be plugged to ensure that everyone can use the service.

[jfman]

The whole rationale for Government is to protect against the whims of private enterprise that won’t do things in the public interest.

People on state pension aren’t considered poor, those on pension credit (an income based benefit) are. Plenty of people below pension age that would need additional income to fund this idea. At a time the government want to reduce the benefits bill it seems counterintuitive.

The regulated market works adequately well.

[OLD BOY]

To be honest, jfman, I don’t see how the government can seriously agree to spend scarce resources on a preferred method of broadcasting that the content providers don’t want.

If channels are abandoned in favour of streaming, and at a time that the BBC complain they are so cash strapped that they have to withdraw services, what will be left to broadcast terrestrially?

To date, I haven’t heard a reasoned argument against that view, apart from the usual appeal to the emotions that ‘people want the choice’.

I don’t think the option will be available, and there won’t be a referendum!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

To be honest, jfman, I don’t see how the government can seriously agree to spend scarce resources on a preferred method of broadcasting that the content providers don’t want.

If channels are abandoned in favour of streaming, and at a time that the BBC complain they are so cash strapped that they have to withdraw services, what will be left to broadcast terrestrially?

To date, I haven’t heard a reasoned argument against that view, apart from the usual appeal to the emotions that ‘people want the choice’.

I don’t think the option will be available, and there won’t be a referendum!

What’s the cost to Government of mandating that public service broadcasters keep using terrestrial? In the absence of a lucrative alternative use the answer is near zero.

There are 7.8 million people on “low income” benefits. Usually pensioners on low incomes (pension credit) or the state subsidising poverty wages for unscrupulous employers (universal credit). Do you propose all of them get “free broadband” just to satisfy your own narrow vision?

People want the choice is the very rallying cry of capitalism. People paying to watch, or paying to advertise to viewers, is the very definition of a successful market. There’s no need for state or regulatory intervention that immediately the state has to mitigate the harm from in the manner you propose.

It’s completely absurd.

There may indeed be no referendum but it’s easy pickings for an opposition to campaign on a near zero cost popular policy. Starmer’s not going to do something as unpopular as indicated above for no tangible benefit to anyone.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

To be honest, jfman, I don’t see how the government can seriously agree to spend scarce resources on a preferred method of broadcasting that the content providers don’t want.

If channels are abandoned in favour of streaming, and at a time that the BBC complain they are so cash strapped that they have to withdraw services, what will be left to broadcast terrestrially?

To date, I haven’t heard a reasoned argument against that view, apart from the usual appeal to the emotions that ‘people want the choice’.

I don’t think the option will be available, and there won’t be a referendum!

You’ve heard plenty of reasoned arguments, repeatedly, over many years. They just don’t align with your opinion, so you dismiss them and tell yourself that dismissing an argument is somehow the same as disproving it.

Also LOL at you posting an article that proves terrestrial TV is a highly valued commodity and then somehow concluding the government must inevitably decide to pi$$ everyone off by authorising its switch-off.

And further LOL at whoever wrote that piece observing the BBC has failed to ‘commit’ to continued support of terrestrial broadcast, as if that means it might unilaterally pull the plug, when in fact it is not up to the BBC to decide that - it is part of its charter conditions, which are set by parliament, not by the BBC.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

You’ve heard plenty of reasoned arguments, repeatedly, over many years. They just don’t align with your opinion, so you dismiss them and tell yourself that dismissing an argument is somehow the same as disproving it.

Also LOL at you posting an article that proves terrestrial TV is a highly valued commodity and then somehow concluding the government must inevitably decide to pi$$ everyone off by authorising its switch-off.

And further LOL at whoever wrote that piece observing the BBC has failed to ‘commit’ to continued support of terrestrial broadcast, as if that means it might unilaterally pull the plug, when in fact it is not up to the BBC to decide that - it is part of its charter conditions, which are set by parliament, not by the BBC.

I’m not sure where you are coming from - it’s like you are living on a different planet.

As the article says:

‘In 2024, free-to-air broadcasters and regulator Ofcom warned of a tipping point in terms of the viability of terrestrial TV broadcasts. The BBC highlighted the increasing cost of terrestrial TV per user. It also put a question mark over whether or not it could justify the ongoing expenditure.’

The article references the public’s preference to continue to broadcast terrestrially, but you ignore completely the financial issues associated with continuing to use transmitters for this purpose.

It does not cost peanuts to broadcast this way as jfman supposes, and the move to IP will lead to broadcasters wanting to disseminate their content through streaming only, which may or may not include streaming channels to replace existing ones. Streaming will finish off the ability for people to record shows, which is what broadcasters and content providers want, and advertisers want to prevent people from skipping over advertisements.

This may seem to you to be a controversial subject, and there are still some on here who cannot even envisage this, but it doesn’t make what I have said incorrect. The advantages of broadcasting via IP is too great to be resisted.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’m not sure where you are coming from - it’s like you are living on a different planet.

As the article says:

‘In 2024, free-to-air broadcasters and regulator Ofcom warned of a tipping point in terms of the viability of terrestrial TV broadcasts. The BBC highlighted the increasing cost of terrestrial TV per user. It also put a question mark over whether or not it could justify the ongoing expenditure.’

The article references the public’s preference to continue to broadcast terrestrially, but you ignore completely the financial issues associated with continuing to use transmitters for this purpose.

That’s because it’s a sleight-of-hand.

There is no cost per user on terrestrial TV. It is a flat cost, regardless of how many people receive the broadcast.

Dividing it up amongst those who actually tune in, in order to create an entirely notional amount spent per user, is pointless because there are so many other factors that are within the broadcasters’ control if they want to have lower costs per user - principally, by making programmes more users want to watch.

The PSBs, the BBC most of all, have the top EPG slots and are in every home, on every platform. If they’re losing viewers they shouldn’t be helped to vanish up their own arsehoes by agreeing to switch off the distribution method your own link proves is the one viewers still want.

It does not cost peanuts to broadcast this way as jfman supposes,

Wrong.

Mature technology - check.
Reaches every customer - check (pretty much).
Minimal barrier to entry for consumer (in terms of cost of receiver, simplicity of technology) - check.

The cost to reach every customer - because it does reach every customer, whether or not they actually watch is another matter - is tiny.

and the move to IP will lead to broadcasters wanting to disseminate their content through streaming only, which may or may not include streaming channels to replace existing ones. Streaming will finish off the ability for people to record shows, which is what broadcasters and content providers want, and advertisers want to prevent people from skipping over advertisements.

That wet, squishing noise is the sound of you dragging the goalposts across a particularly soggy Sunday league football pitch and hoping everyone’s too tired or drunk to notice.

The principal protagonist here, according to the article you linked to, is the BBC, which is the backbone of UK public service broadcasting and, famously, does not run adverts. In fact it even employs people to blur out the trademen’s business names on DIY SOS, such is its commitment to not advertising, even on the occasions it would be rather nicer if they did.

The apparent cost to stream is so low because nobody has yet fully addressed the elephant in that room, which is that consumers are paying network operators for ‘unlimited’ internet access based on certain assumptions about average monthly data usage. I don’t know if you’re aware quite how much of a difference it makes to data usage when a household goes IP only - in the 50 days since our router was last power cycled we’ve downloaded just shy of 3 terabytes. We’re in a new-build and haven’t got round to putting an aerial up, so all our consumption is over IP. That’s what a single family doing *everything* online looks like. Push close to 2 terabytes per month on every household and the ISPs are going to start squealing, loudly, and suddenly the entire business model for the delivery of home broadband has to change. Whatever the streamers are currently paying for peering, content delivery networks and the like, doesn’t come close to covering the actual cost.

This may seem to you to be a controversial subject, and there are still some on here who cannot even envisage this, but it doesn’t make what I have said incorrect. The advantages of broadcasting via IP is too great to be resisted.

This is exactly what I meant when I said you think dismissing something when it doesn’t align with you opinion is not the same thing as successfully arguing against it. You might as well have just stuck your fingers in your ears and gone ‘lalala’.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

That’s because it’s a sleight-of-hand.

There is no cost per user on terrestrial TV. It is a flat cost, regardless of how many people receive the broadcast.

Dividing it up amongst those who actually tune in, in order to create an entirely notional amount spent per user, is pointless because there are so many other factors that are within the broadcasters’ control if they want to have lower costs per user - principally, by making programmes more users want to watch.

The PSBs, the BBC most of all, have the top EPG slots and are in every home, on every platform. If they’re losing viewers they shouldn’t be helped to vanish up their own arsehoes by agreeing to switch off the distribution method your own link proves is the one viewers still want.



Wrong.

Mature technology - check.
Reaches every customer - check (pretty much).
Minimal barrier to entry for consumer (in terms of cost of receiver, simplicity of technology) - check.

The cost to reach every customer - because it does reach every customer, whether or not they actually watch is another matter - is tiny.



That wet, squishing noise is the sound of you dragging the goalposts across a particularly soggy Sunday league football pitch and hoping everyone’s too tired or drunk to notice.

The principal protagonist here, according to the article you linked to, is the BBC, which is the backbone of UK public service broadcasting and, famously, does not run adverts. In fact it even employs people to blur out the trademen’s business names on DIY SOS, such is its commitment to not advertising, even on the occasions it would be rather nicer if they did.

The apparent cost to stream is so low because nobody has yet fully addressed the elephant in that room, which is that consumers are paying network operators for ‘unlimited’ internet access based on certain assumptions about average monthly data usage. I don’t know if you’re aware quite how much of a difference it makes to data usage when a household goes IP only - in the 50 days since our router was last power cycled we’ve downloaded just shy of 3 terabytes. We’re in a new-build and haven’t got round to putting an aerial up, so all our consumption is over IP. That’s what a single family doing *everything* online looks like. Push close to 2 terabytes per month on every household and the ISPs are going to start squealing, loudly, and suddenly the entire business model for the delivery of home broadband has to change. Whatever the streamers are currently paying for peering, content delivery networks and the like, doesn’t come close to covering the actual cost.



This is exactly what I meant when I said you think dismissing something when it doesn’t align with you opinion is not the same thing as successfully arguing against it. You might as well have just stuck your fingers in your ears and gone ‘lalala’.

It’s not just my opinion. Perhaps you should read this.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/...t.pdf?v=344045

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s not just my opinion. Perhaps you should read this.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/...t.pdf?v=344045

What, you mean the report where Ofcom states it is making an ‘early’ assessment of the market (i.e. not making conclusions or asking for certain actions), and proposes that 2 of the 3 possible ways forward include keeping terrestrial broadcast? That one?

Yes. In fact, I read it long before the last time it came up in this thread, which must have been some time ago now because the document is almost a year old.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

What, you mean the report where Ofcom states it is making an ‘early’ assessment of the market (i.e. not making conclusions or asking for certain actions), and proposes that 2 of the 3 possible ways forward include keeping terrestrial broadcast? That one?

Yes. In fact, I read it long before the last time it came up in this thread, which must have been some time ago now because the document is almost a year old.

So you read:

‘ …There is no way around the fact that the proliferation of TV distribution methods ….will put more and more pressure onto PSBs…..The tipping point will come for DSat and eventually DTT at which the costs of distribution outweigh the benefits.’

Still. as usual, you think you know better. Not much I can do about that.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Still. as usual, you think you know better.

Do you ever read what you post ? **


** Pot, Kettle, Black ....

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So you read:

‘ …There is no way around the fact that the proliferation of TV distribution methods ….will put more and more pressure onto PSBs…..The tipping point will come for DSat and eventually DTT at which the costs of distribution outweigh the benefits.’

I did. But, that being the part where they merely identify the problem, I kept reading in order to discover what their possible solutions are. So I also read:

Investment in a more efficient DTT service: If it is considered that the DTT platform will deliver sufficient scale of audiences over the 2030s, or a managed transition away is undesirable, then a more efficient but full DTT service could be considered if ongoing investment or funding could be sustained. We discuss the pressures on commercial funding in 4.15-4.32 below. This may well include supporting audiences with new equipment for more efficient broadcast signals.

And

Reduce DTT down to a core service (known as a ‘nightlight’): The DTT service could maintain a minimum number of core channels (for example, the main public service channels). This could be done as a temporary transition to a fuller switch off, or remain indefinitely as a provider of last resort. This would make running the infrastructure cheaper overall but spread across fewer users. Co-users such as FM/DAB radio could remain, which also then provide power-resilient broadcasts in emergency situations.

And also

Move towards DTT switch-off over the 2030s: A planned campaign to support people in getting connected and confident with internet TV services could facilitate a DTT switch-off. This would take careful planning to ensure universality of public service broadcasting and that no one was left behind, but would also have wider benefits for digital inclusion.

… which is the only one of the three options Ofcom has put forward for early discussion that actually involved ditching DTT. The other two emphatically do not. The *first* one in the list even advocates for investment to make it resilient and more efficient. Yet somehow no matter what you read, and even when what you post says the opposite of what you think it does, you stick to the idea that you must be right. Meanwhile, we draw ever nearer to your switch of prediction date. Tick tock.

Still. as usual, you think you know better. Not much I can do about that.

Based on all the above, apparently I do, and you’re right (for once), no there’s not.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

I did. But, that being the part where they merely identify the problem, I kept reading in order to discover what their possible solutions are. So I also read:



And



And also



… which is the only one of the three options Ofcom has put forward for early discussion that actually involved ditching DTT. The other two emphatically do not. The *first* one in the list even advocates for investment to make it resilient and more efficient. Yet somehow no matter what you read, and even when what you post says the opposite of what you think it does, you stick to the idea that you must be right. Meanwhile, we draw ever nearer to your switch of prediction date. Tick tock.



Based on all the above, apparently I do, and you’re right (for once), no there’s not.

I read all of that. I also read:

‘A significant number of broadcasters voiced concerns in their evidence that maintaining the existing DTT infrastructure is unlikely to be commercially attractive after the 2030s.’

Ofcom may have some sticking plaster solutions, but their mindset is different to what the TV industry actually wants and is prepared to pay for. Money is tight, for TV channels, for the government and for taxpayers. Something has to give.

Ofcom is desperately trying to find reasons for propping up DTT, but it will ultimately fail, in my opinion. Another 10 years and the DTT audience that advertisers wish to attract will have migrated to IP. What’s left? Ah yes, the BBC! Well they are into digital first as well, and they don’t seem to be hanging around, do they?

Well, let the good people of this forum judge for themselves. I’m beginning to think some of you have shares in DTT!

Other DTT broadcasting technologies are available…

https://www.tvbeurope.com/media-deli...-ready-by-2027

PUBLISHED: MARCH 18, 2025

A group of vendors and broadcasters believe 5G Broadcast will finally be ready for use across Europe by 2027.

The 5G Broadcast Strategic Task Force (5BSTF) is made up of Media Broadcast (Germany), TDF (France), Cordiant Capital (UK), Emitel (Poland), CRA (Czech Republic), BTCY (Belgium), and RAI (Italy), and supported by Rohde & Schwarz (Germany).

It is driving the development of a joint commercial roadmap across six European markets representing more than 270 million people.

The goal is to signal 5G Broadcast market readiness and pave the way towards the first commercial network.

The members of 5BSTF have been working together on reaching a population coverage of 125 million residents across Germany, France, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Belgium. 5BSTF members said this could be a completely new addressable market ready to emerge from Q2 2027.

This new market has prompted several mobile original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to assess the business opportunities presented by 5G Broadcast technology, said the 5BSTF. The OEMs are currently conducting extensive field trials utilising readily available commercial devices.

https://kitplus.com/news/major-europ...-in-2027/12574

“We are glad to see private Broadcast Network Operators (BNOs) participating in the Task Force are ready to leverage the existing DTT infrastructure to enable the world’s first 5G Broadcast network connectivity, hence paving the way towards the broadcasting modernization and transforming the broadcasting business landscape,” highlights the 5BSTF Team.

5G Broadcast enables a variety of new multimedia services with lower latency and guaranteed Quality of Service (QoS), thus improving the overall consumer Quality of Experience (QoE). It brings the exceptional DTT video quality into smartphones and tablets, available in additional use cases like transport or outdoor for a rejuvenated editor audience. The new broadcast technology comes with a simplified and flat infrastructure having a minimum impact on the environment with minimum CO2 emissions and lowering the barrier for consumers to enjoy premium Zero-rated content with longer battery lifetime.

The emergence of a new addressable market has prompted several mobile original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to assess the business opportunities presented by 5G Broadcast technology, particularly given the low entry barriers on a global scale that align with their strategic goals, as has been extensively confirmed in 2025 Mobile World Congress, Barcelona. At present, these manufacturers are conducting extensive field trials utilizing readily available commercial devices, while simultaneously seeking innovative methods to broaden their product range and enhance the device upgrade cycle, all aimed at providing an outstanding consumer experience.

https://www.csimagazine.com/csi/5G-B...-in-Europe.php

TowerCast not just focused on the near term but also addressing TV sets and automotive spaces.

“For us, 5G is the future of DTT in France,” Dumond reiterated.

In Germany, 5GB is less advanced but still moving steadily forward.
Network service provider Media Broadcast believes it could be a game changer for broadcasters, advertisers and consumers alike.

Research suggests that 4 million people in Germany currently consume DTT on mobile – but this could rise 15x to 53 million with the introduction of 5G Broadcast, which is part of the global 5G standard.

“There is huge potential to bring linear TV to mobile phones,” said Markus Schneider, product manager at Media Broadcast. “This is the biggest argument to bringing 5G Broadcast to Germany.”

One business model would be the ability to offer targeted ads in the linear TV stream to smartphones – something which is not possible now.

Broadcasters would appreciate the cheaper CDN cost of running a DTT service. “There are costs but these costs are fixed,” Schneider said.

Another driver for 5G user potential is the projected growth in Europe of live video to mobile handsets. Because devices have a feedback channel it means links to VOD platforms easily embedded.

He also pointed to the green energy saving benefits of 5G Broadcast which is 90% less than that of streaming.