VOD : The future for linear TV channels

Originally Posted by 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.

But he deduced

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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 ----------



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



Still in denial, I see.

It's the cost of making the programming that takes up most of the budget of operating a linear channel. The 'bother' of running a parallel linear channel to also show their content is negligible as the extra costs are negligible and the function can be automated.

As long as the extra ad revenue exceeds the low extra costs, I see no reason why they would drop this format for those that want to use it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's the cost of making the programming that takes up most of the budget of operating a linear channel. The 'bother' of running a parallel linear channel to also show their content is negligible as the extra costs are negligible and the function can be automated.

As long as the extra ad revenue exceeds the low extra costs, I see no reason why they would drop this format for those that want to use it.

That is not at all correct, Richard - how did you make that out?

Clearly you don’t want to believe me. This is what Gemini says:

Running parallel traditional (terrestrial/satellite) and IP-only broadcasts is extremely costly. Maintaining dual infrastructures means paying twice for playout systems. Broadcasters must fund legacy hardware while simultaneously scaling cloud infrastructure, Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), and high egress fees to stream over the internet.The financial weight of this transition breaks down into key areas:

Hardware Redundancy: Traditional broadcasting requires expensive, dedicated uplink and satellite hardware. Running IP parallel requires a completely separate software-defined cloud and fiber ecosystem.

Scalability Expenses: Traditional broadcasts cost the same whether one or one million people watch. Internet (IP) delivery costs more as audiences grow, as broadcasters pay Content Delivery Networks based on how much data users download.

National Costs: Complete shifts require massive overhauls. For example, studies in the UK estimate a full switch to IP-only delivery could incur one-off costs of up to £2.1 billion, alongside £1 billion in ongoing annual costs.While a phased "hybrid" model allows broadcasters to safely test emerging technologies, keeping both legacy and IP workflows separate for too long leads to higher total distribution costs.

There are diminishing advertising revenue yields also as viewers using the traditional system move away into streaming.

The definition for "Linear" TV seems pretty simple.

Linear TV is traditional television programming where viewers watch shows as they are broadcast on a set schedule.

HOW they are broadcast doesnt seem relevant to the definition.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That is not at all correct, Richard - how did you make that out?

Clearly you don’t want to believe me. This is what Gemini says:

Running parallel traditional (terrestrial/satellite) and IP-only broadcasts is extremely costly. Maintaining dual infrastructures means paying twice for playout systems. Broadcasters must fund legacy hardware while simultaneously scaling cloud infrastructure, Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), and high egress fees to stream over the internet.The financial weight of this transition breaks down into key areas:

Hardware Redundancy: Traditional broadcasting requires expensive, dedicated uplink and satellite hardware. Running IP parallel requires a completely separate software-defined cloud and fiber ecosystem.

Scalability Expenses: Traditional broadcasts cost the same whether one or one million people watch. Internet (IP) delivery costs more as audiences grow, as broadcasters pay Content Delivery Networks based on how much data users download.

National Costs: Complete shifts require massive overhauls. For example, studies in the UK estimate a full switch to IP-only delivery could incur one-off costs of up to £2.1 billion, alongside £1 billion in ongoing annual costs.While a phased "hybrid" model allows broadcasters to safely test emerging technologies, keeping both legacy and IP workflows separate for too long leads to higher total distribution costs.

There are diminishing advertising revenue yields also as viewers using the traditional system move away into streaming.

Not a single figure as to the cost of maintaining a presence on DTT, satellite or any other platform, but it’s good to know IP only is nice and expensive.

Richard is right on this one.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

The definition for "Linear" TV seems pretty simple.



HOW they are broadcast doesnt seem relevant to the definition.

I agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that most people equate linear TV with scheduled TV channels. It’s just a quick, but not entirely accurate definition.

This should never have derailed the whole discussion about whether traditional TV channels would continue to exist. It was a deliberate diversion to steer the discussion away from what some people didn’t want to hear.

---------- Post added at 23:20 ---------- Previous post was at 23:15 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Not a single figure as to the cost of maintaining a presence on DTT, satellite or any other platform, but it’s good to know IP only is nice and expensive.

Richard is right on this one.

Take it up with the author of the article.

Once again, you’ve missed the point, which is that it is too expensive to continue to use two systems.

IP may be expensive, but that’s the direction that we’re headed in. You seem to be arguing that we should make it even more expensive by continuing to run two systems side by side.

I thought you were supposed to be an economist?

[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.

---------- Post added at 04:46 ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that most people equate linear TV with scheduled TV channels. It’s just a quick, but not entirely accurate definition.

This should never have derailed the whole discussion about whether traditional TV channels would continue to exist. It was a deliberate diversion to steer the discussion away from what some people didn’t want to hear.

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.

[OLD BOY]

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.

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.

[jfman]

If that was your argument, held consistently, for the best part of the last 15 years debate over the word “linear” wouldn’t have been necessary at all. It’s inconsistent with points you’ve previously made about savings to be made by organising a TV schedule and broadcasting according to it.

Once again you’ve got so close to the point of the Green Paper, yet missed the point entirely. State subsidy is required to push people - 1.5 million households - off DTT. Not to maintain it.