VOD : The future for linear TV channels

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Here is proof, if it's needed, that sport can be delivered via streaming and not just through conventional linear channels.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2017/...gium-ott-only/

Proof isn't needed. The point, made repeatedly in this thread for many many months now, is that live broadcasts are linear by their very nature. Whether terrestrial, satellite, cable or IP stream is used to deliver it is irrelevant. Live TV is linear.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Proof isn't needed. The point, made repeatedly in this thread for many many months now, is that live broadcasts are linear by their very nature. Whether terrestrial, satellite, cable or IP stream is used to deliver it is irrelevant. Live TV is linear.

Yes, I raised this simply because some views expressed have been that there will always be the Sky Sports channels as they are now because people want to watch sport live. I just wanted to make it clear that we could simply have streamed channels, which you could watch live.

There has been confusion on this thread due to some pedantry over technical terminology. Whilst I accept completely that watching live by streaming is linear TV, just as our broadcast channels are linear, the word 'linear' has been used quite widely on the internet as meaning the conventional broadcast channels.

However, the point I have made here is not irrelevant to those who prefer to watch everything via conventional scheduled TV.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Chris

Proof isn't needed. The point, made repeatedly in this thread for many many months now, is that live broadcasts are linear by their very nature. Whether terrestrial, satellite, cable or IP stream is used to deliver it is irrelevant. Live TV is linear.

True. But not really the point here.


Premium sports channels, until relatively recently, have only been available via a 12 month pay TV contract, where you have to pay for non sports channels as part of the package.


Streaming services such as the Now TV sports subscription gives people just the sports content, and don't force them into taking channels they don't want. Plus, it is a monthly subscription and people are not tied into a 12 month contract.


That is the significance of streaming services.

[OLD BOY]

If you are interested in how EPGs will adapt to new ways of viewing in the near future, you will find this a jolly good read.

It refers to the barker channel for Netflix mixed in with the broadcast linear channels (already on Virgin Media) and also suggests that we will have much shorter EPG lists in future which will include just the main channel (eg ITV), and when clicked will display the subsidiary channels (eg ITV2, 3, 4, ITV Be, etc). This would be much easier to navigate and reduce our reliance on channel numbers to find the channels we are looking for, I believe.

A nice little look into the very near future.


http://v-net.tv/2017/05/04/what-the-...ebook-channel/

[Onramp]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If you are interested in how EPGs will adapt to new ways of viewing in the near future, you will find this a jolly good read.

It refers to the barker channel for Netflix mixed in with the broadcast linear channels (already on Virgin Media) and also suggests that we will have much shorter EPG lists in future which will include just the main channel (eg ITV), and when clicked will display the subsidiary channels (eg ITV2, 3, 4, ITV Be, etc). This would be much easier to navigate and reduce our reliance on channel numbers to find the channels we are looking for, I believe.

A nice little look into the very near future.


http://v-net.tv/2017/05/04/what-the-...ebook-channel/

Seems like they just read my post from about a month ago.

[OLD BOY]

Although no definite decision has been made yet, I think the writing is on the wall now - broadcasting will be internet only by 2035.

I’ve not yet picked up whether existing channels (excluding FAST channels) will become streamers only at that time, but I would say that this appears to me to be the likely outcome.

https://www.advanced-television.com/...tv-switch-off/

[EXTRACT]

The UK government has published a Green Paper titled Watch this Space: A new strategic direction for UK media, which includes information on the future of TV distribution in the UK, from traditional terrestrial broadcasting (DTT) to watching TV over the internet. The government maintains it is committed to DTT until 2034,

In response to this, The Connection Project – a national alliance dedicated to closing the digital divide – has released a statement strongly supporting this switchover.

Natalie Ceeney CBE, Chair of The Connection Project, said: “The Connection Project welcomes today’s Media Green Paper and the government’s view that 2034 is the right timeline for completing a managed transition to internet-based TV services, with support to make sure no one is left behind. A 2034 date creates the urgency needed to complete the job of building high quality connectivity across the UK, find solutions for those who can’t afford even the cheapest packages, and develop effective, trusted support for households. A later date risks losing this momentum.”

[jfman]

It does help to read the Green Paper before commenting rather than relying on entrenched industry blogs.

The cost benefits analysis - and the massive option B of 2044 - is a compelling read. 1.51 million homes at risk of being cut off from television altogether in 2034. Now who should bear the cost of educating these people, replacing their hardware, and paying for their internet services?

The shareholders of “streamers”, ISPs or the taxpayer?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

It does help to read the Green Paper before commenting rather than relying on entrenched industry blogs.

The cost benefits analysis - and the massive option B of 2044 - is a compelling read. 1.51 million homes at risk of being cut off from television altogether in 2034. Now who should bear the cost of educating these people, replacing their hardware, and paying for their internet services?

The shareholders of “streamers”, ISPs or the taxpayer?

The government is putting that responsibility on the TV industry. I expect that to be backed up by appropriated regulation.

As for your usual quip about the ‘source’ of the information, you have no proof to the contrary, and frankly you’d be better dealing with what the content says rather than who is saying it. If you have contrary evidence, I’m perfectly happy to read and (if appropriate), comment on it.

[gunner45]

Originally Posted by Chris

Proof isn't needed. The point, made repeatedly in this thread for many many months now, is that live broadcasts are linear by their very nature. Whether terrestrial, satellite, cable or IP stream is used to deliver it is irrelevant. Live TV is linear.

Just because something is said repeatedly does not make it right. Traditionally linear referred to everything that was broadcast, and you could look up the programme schedules to find out what was coming. But now we have live programmes, some by choice (like BBC iPlayer news) and some scheduled (like FAST channels). And on Virgin Media's EPG I counted 39 FAST channels, all scheduled: I say these are linear as they are scheduled and on the EPG, and the fact that they are delivered by IP is of no interest to the viewer.

And just to be clear: under this definition which is user-centric, live is only linear when it is scheduled and live can also be non‑linear when it is user‑initiated (on-demand). It's only when you disentangle live from linear can you see how IPTV is changing how we consume content.

[jfman]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...tion-questions

There’s a whole Green Paper OB, highlighting the inherent risks that many on the forum have been pointing out to you for years. The very existence of a Plan B is alarm bells for the 2034 date.

Notably however, it does say linear television is expected to continue over IPTV. So that’s that settled.

Originally Posted by gunner45

Just because something is said repeatedly does not make it right. Traditionally linear referred to everything that was broadcast, and you could look up the programme schedules to find out what was coming. But now we have live programmes, some by choice (like BBC iPlayer news) and some scheduled (like FAST channels). And on Virgin Media's EPG I counted 39 FAST channels, all scheduled: I say these are linear as they are scheduled and on the EPG, and the fact that they are delivered by IP is of no interest to the viewer.

And just to be clear: under this definition which is user-centric, live is only linear when it is scheduled and live can also be non‑linear when it is user‑initiated (on-demand). It's only when you disentangle live from linear can you see how IPTV is changing how we consume content.

Unfortunately you’re trying to jump into the middle of a very long running and very specific argument over the nature of user OLD BOY’s predictions about the future of TV.

Unless you’re going to trouble yourself to follow that thread right through and understand the point I’m actually making, specifically in reply to OB, you’re liable to get the wrong end of the stick (as you have in fact done here).

Though I can’t blame you for not wanting to read all of this. It’s relentless.

[RichardCoulter]

Radio 4 LW closed earlier today, old technology is gradually being phased out.

Originally Posted by gunner45

Just because something is said repeatedly does not make it right. Traditionally linear referred to everything that was broadcast, and you could look up the programme schedules to find out what was coming. But now we have live programmes, some by choice (like BBC iPlayer news) and some scheduled (like FAST channels). And on Virgin Media's EPG I counted 39 FAST channels, all scheduled: I say these are linear as they are scheduled and on the EPG, and the fact that they are delivered by IP is of no interest to the viewer.

And just to be clear: under this definition which is user-centric, live is only linear when it is scheduled and live can also be non‑linear when it is user‑initiated (on-demand). It's only when you disentangle live from linear can you see how IPTV is changing how we consume content.

FYI (and as Chris had said, this is a very long ongoing discussion), one of our esteemed CF’ers (who believes Live TV will be extinct by 2035, and "StReaMinG is the FutUrE!!!") defined Linear TV as

Linear TV is live in the sense that we are watching it as it is being broadcast. That’s why it is often described as ‘live TV’.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by gunner45

Just because something is said repeatedly does not make it right. Traditionally linear referred to everything that was broadcast, and you could look up the programme schedules to find out what was coming. But now we have live programmes, some by choice (like BBC iPlayer news) and some scheduled (like FAST channels). And on Virgin Media's EPG I counted 39 FAST channels, all scheduled: I say these are linear as they are scheduled and on the EPG, and the fact that they are delivered by IP is of no interest to the viewer.

And just to be clear: under this definition which is user-centric, live is only linear when it is scheduled and live can also be non‑linear when it is user‑initiated (on-demand). It's only when you disentangle live from linear can you see how IPTV is changing how we consume content.

Well, quite. But there has been far too much pedantry over the term ‘linear’. My question throughout has been whether TV channels such as BBC1 and ITV1 will survive in that form when TV becomes IP only.

I have no doubt that FAST channels will continue as long as they remain popular, but I deduced over 10 years ago now that our traditional broadcasters would not want to go to the bother of running their channels as well as their streaming services.

So unless the government applies pressure to keep them going, or provides the necessary funding to make it worthwhile, I think the lifespan of the traditional TV channels is very limited now.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Unfortunately you’re trying to jump into the middle of a very long running and very specific argument over the nature of user OLD BOY’s predictions about the future of TV.

Unless you’re going to trouble yourself to follow that thread right through and understand the point I’m actually making, specifically in reply to OB, you’re liable to get the wrong end of the stick (as you have in fact done here).

Though I can’t blame you for not wanting to read all of this. It’s relentless.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

FYI (and as Chris had said, this is a very long ongoing discussion), one of our esteemed CF’ers (who believes Live TV will be extinct by 2035, and "StReaMinG is the FutUrE!!!") defined Linear TV as

Still in denial, I see.

[jfman]

Au contraire, OB. Read the Green Paper. Linear television lives on, over IP, as a requirement for any changes to go ahead - potentially in 2044.