VOD : Linear is old tech - on demand is the future

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I just did, but from a different thread. It's on here too but I can't be arsed to trawl through 88 pages!

If you make a claim like that then prove it OB.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I just did, but from a different thread. It's on here too but I can't be arsed to trawl through 88 pages!

Thanks Old Boy for digging up my old post, which I think you will find entirely consistent with my most recent one here.

We've done this one. Costs buttons to maintain a linear presence if you own the content anyway.

My bold.

You keep wilfully leaving out this caveat.

You will find that my position is entirely consistent with the BBCs here.

The BBC are making all of the content anyway, however not getting the reach or the viewers by streaming alone. Why cut their nose off to spite their face to make you happy?

You can pick any channel run on a shoestring budget on the Sky EPG to confirm that the actual cost of broadcasting is tiny compared to the actual cost of content.

You are the only person that sees this as a zero sum game. These companies (and more importantly their shareholders) do not.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Thanks Old Boy for digging up my old post, which I think you will find entirely consistent with my most recent one here.

My bold.

You keep wilfully leaving out this caveat.

You will find that my position is entirely consistent with the BBCs here.

My post 1318 includes your caveat. So what's your point? As far as I am aware, BBC3 Online and BBC4 content belongs to the BBC.

So, according to your own assessment, the Beeb should be able to reinstate BBC3 without very much cost at all.

The fact that the Beeb is having to balance whether to replace BBC4 with BBC 3 seems to prove you wrong. If it was so inexpensive to run a channel (ahem, with their own content) why the agonising?

---------- Post added at 20:30 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

You can pick any channel run on a shoestring budget on the Sky EPG to confirm that the actual cost of broadcasting is tiny compared to the actual cost of content.

You are the only person that sees this as a zero sum game. These companies (and more importantly their shareholders) do not.

Really? So why the agonising over how to fund it, then?

Nothing like reality to demolish a poorly thought out argument.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

You are the only person that sees this as a zero sum game. These companies (and more importantly their shareholders) do not.

The only one? Another untruth.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My post 1318 includes your caveat. So what's your point?

My point is that you wilfully misrepresent it. As in post 1314, noted by Hugh in post 1315.

As far as I am aware, BBC3 Online and BBC4 content belongs to the BBC.

So, according to your own assessment, the Beeb should be able to reinstate BBC3 without very much cost at all.

The fact that the Beeb is having to balance whether to replace BBC4 with BBC 3 seems to prove you wrong. If it was so inexpensive to run a channel (ahem, with their own content) why the agonising?

BBC 4 has an annual budget of £44m. They want to invest in content for BBC 3 - doubling investment to £80m.

So the choice that the BBC are toiling over is, unsurprisingly, much more complex than the simplistic way you portrayed it in your post. Some credible links too:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...nder-proposals

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...losure-rumours

Really? So why the agonising over how to fund it, then?

Nothing like reality to demolish a poorly thought out argument.

I couldn't have put that better myself.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I just did, but from a different thread. It's on here too but I can't be arsed to trawl through 88 pages!

I quite understand - why should you have to resort to evidence-based discussion...

---------- Post added at 21:32 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

My point is that you wilfully misrepresent it. As in post 1314, noted by Hugh in post 1315.



BBC 4 has an annual budget of £44m. They want to invest in content for BBC 3 - doubling investment to £80m.

So the choice that the BBC are toiling over is, unsurprisingly, much more complex than the simplistic way you portrayed it in your post. Some credible links too:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...nder-proposals

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...losure-rumours



I couldn't have put that better myself.

tuppence, £80m - not much difference...

[jfman]

I've never denied that content costs money.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Jfman believes that a linear TV station can be run for tuppence, so it really shouldn’t even a problem, Den. 😂

---------- Post added at 18:44 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------



Not yet it’s not. Don’t know where you got that from.

Ask that question again in the next decade.

Dude i work in the tv channel industry and i can tell you now there are plans set for at least 30 years for linear tv so it aint going anywhere, the number of channels will drop for sure and online tv will grow without a doubt but remember live tv via internet is still linear tv.

Originally Posted by jfman

I've never denied that content costs money.

I know - you also never said a linear station can be run for tuppence.

What you should have said was that a linear station could be run for tuppence (inflation adjusted) in the 2030s...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I quite understand - why should you have to resort to evidence-based discussion...

---------- Post added at 21:32 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

tuppence, £80m - not much difference...

I agree that jfman didn't actually say it would cost tuppence to run a linear channel. He actually said it would cost 'buttons', which is much the same thing. I acknowledge his caveat, but I have never questioned that.

According to your links, the BBC want to increase funding for BBC3, which is fine. However, given the dearth of new programming on BBC4, it is amazing that the channel costs as much as it does to run.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree that jfman didn't actually say it would cost tuppence to run a linear channel. He actually said it would cost 'buttons', which is much the same thing. I acknowledge his caveat, but I have never questioned that.

According to your links, the BBC want to increase funding for BBC3, which is fine. However, given the dearth of new programming on BBC4, it is amazing that the channel costs as much as it does to run.

Not much new content on BBC1 or BBC2 either so why should 3/4 be any different?

Not a great deal on streamed TV either - the virus affects every type of TV.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by Raider999

Not much new content on BBC1 or BBC2 either so why should 3/4 be any different?

Not a great deal on streamed TV either - the virus affects every type of TV.

Agreed i'm glad i have a huge backlog of shows and movies to watch.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree that jfman didn't actually say it would cost tuppence to run a linear channel. He actually said it would cost 'buttons', which is much the same thing. I acknowledge his caveat, but I have never questioned that.

According to your links, the BBC want to increase funding for BBC3, which is fine. However, given the dearth of new programming on BBC4, it is amazing that the channel costs as much as it does to run.

You didn’t acknowledge the caveat in your reply to Den. That’s the point.

Even in this post you are conflating the cost of running a linear channel (including content) and creating a linear broadcast (from content you own and are likely streaming.

Not once have you ever demonstrated how and when linear ceases to be viable. Switch on a TV and press 1 is always going to hold some value because of it’s prominence and it works if your internet provider goes down. https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/28/thous...ours-12619391/

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by jfman

You didn’t acknowledge the caveat in your reply to Den. That’s the point.

Even in this post you are conflating the cost of running a linear channel (including content) and creating a linear broadcast (from content you own and are likely streaming.

Not once have you ever demonstrated how and when linear ceases to be viable. Switch on a TV and press 1 is always going to hold some value because of it’s prominence and it works if your internet provider goes down. https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/28/thous...ours-12619391/

Didn't he say 2035?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Didn't he say 2035?

That’s the figure plucked from the air, yes. The “how” part is somewhat lacking.

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Didn't he say 2035?

Yes - in this thread, post #303 from 2018.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If you go back to all my posts on this, you will see that I have been looking towards 2035 (originally 20 years ahead but less now)!

It will be a gradual process at first, but that will speed up as fast broadband speeds become available throughout the country and more people become used to on demand viewing. The reduction in audience levels for the conventional TV channels will lead to reduced advertising revenues and ultimately, these channels will start closing down.

Some have said that the BBC won't be affected as they don't carry commercials, but even they are working on the basis that in 15 years' time' streaming and on demand viewing will be the focus.

Others have said that we will always see conventional channels for showing sport, but we can all see the trend towards streaming of live sport - the new Eleven Sports streaming service being the latest example.

But 5 years ago, in another thread.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

In ten years? You may be right. In 20? Do you remember what it was like watching TV 20 years ago? In 1995, analogue cable TV was just being rolled out and most people did not have the Internet.

Given all the changes that can happen in a short space of time, particularly now, with technological advances being made at an ever faster rate, I don't think it wise to be saying that the existing linear TV model will still exist, at least in its present form, in the longer term.

And as for the BBC, I did not say that it would not exist in ten years. There's not a reason that I can think of why the BBC should not present all of its programmes by way of streaming in the future.

Incidentally, the BBC may be the last to depart from linear TV broadcasting, given that their channels do not waste 15 minutes of every hour showing commercials!