The future of television

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

Nearing completion ? not really.

Openreach have plans to make fttp available to 80% of UK premises by the end of 2026, and (almost) the rest by the 2030.

Even then, with fttp, you can still get issues watching TV over BB, I have it and the sky-go streams can stutter or freeze for a few seconds.

May I remind you that 2030 is a mere five years away, so I stand by my comment that broadband rollout is nearing completion.

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

How to argue like an Old Boy:

1. Read an Ofcom report. Get excited at Ofcom’s description of ‘The Problem’.
2. Read right below Ofcom’s description of the problem, three possible solutions, most of which don’t involve switching off DTT.
3. Ignore Ofcom’s potential solutions because they don’t agree with you.
4. Endlessly post descriptions of the problem as if you’re the only person who knows what it is, and then keep pushing your ideas as if you’re the only person who who’s thought it through.

I am well aware of Ofcom’s reference to ‘possible solutions’. They’ve been wrong before. Remember their rubbishing of Project Kangaroo?

I’m concentrating on what the broadcasting industry is doing and the fact the continuing to run two systems is unnecessarily costly for them.

Your constant demeaning of things people write which you don’t agree with does not enhance your reputation, Chris. You have failed to address the points I have made in that post.This was a discussion forum last time I looked, but it seems that anyone who disagrees with your perspective is an idiot according to you.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The traditional methods of broadcasting are actually cheaper than streaming to mass audiences.

Therefore, when I asked a BBC technologist why they are going to move over to streaming their content, he said that 'It's pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using'.

This leads me to believe that broadcasters will carry on using the traditional methods for as long as possible, though this will be impacted by having to sign new contracts, which may not be prudent long term.

Re: Government carbon footprint worries. In a sense, maybe it would be better to ban streaming for those able to broadcast via another methods and continue as we are??

The conclusion you came to (highlighted in bold) does not really add up, Richard. You asked ‘why were they going to move over to streaming their content’, to which they replied ‘it’s pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using.’

So given that they are moving to streaming, how does that fit with the rest of the statement, which indicates that they don’t envisage people sticking with DTT in sufficient numbers, and your conclusion that this means they will carry on with traditional methods for as long as possible?

[jfman]

Which brings us (once again) to the fact that the advertising revenue from reaching the eyeballs on DTT outweighs the costs of broadcasting on it. Because to a rights holder the additional cost of the DTT platform is peanuts by comparison for the multi-billion point television industry.

Rational capitalists don’t voluntarily cannibalise their revenue streams and hand advantages to their competitors. Hence everyone keeps a far higher volume of content, by hour of broadcast, on DTT above the contractual minimum for PSBs.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which brings us (once again) to the fact that the advertising revenue from reaching the eyeballs on DTT outweighs the costs of broadcasting on it. Because to a rights holder the additional cost of the DTT platform is peanuts by comparison for the multi-billion point television industry.

Rational capitalists don’t voluntarily cannibalise their revenue streams and hand advantages to their competitors. Hence everyone keeps a far higher volume of content, by hour of broadcast, on DTT above the contractual minimum for PSBs.

But that ignores the fact that advertising is also carried on IP systems, and that those advertisements are non skippable to boot.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But that ignores the fact that advertising is also carried on IP systems, and that those advertisements are non skippable to boot.

Yes, OB.

But the viewers aren’t all on IP based systems for a multitude of reasons, explained many times over. Viewers who actually have mechanisms to use on demand - and have done for twenty years - still watch linear television as broadcast. Including over DTT.

That’s the square that cannot be circled without big bad government intervention making a decision unpopular to the masses.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which brings us (once again) to the fact that the advertising revenue from reaching the eyeballs on DTT outweighs the costs of broadcasting on it. Because to a rights holder the additional cost of the DTT platform is peanuts by comparison for the multi-billion point television industry.

Rational capitalists don’t voluntarily cannibalise their revenue streams and hand advantages to their competitors. Hence everyone keeps a far higher volume of content, by hour of broadcast, on DTT above the contractual minimum for PSBs.

The TV industry disagrees with you, jfman. Do you actually know the total cost of DTT broadcasting?

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes, OB.

But the viewers aren’t all on IP based systems for a multitude of reasons, explained many times over. Viewers who actually have mechanisms to use on demand - and have done for twenty years - still watch linear television as broadcast. Including over DTT.

That’s the square that cannot be circled without big bad government intervention making a decision unpopular to the masses.

Yes, but what will be the situation in five years’ time’? Audience figures are declining.

What you are ignoring is that if IP is the only method of broadcasting in the future, then that is what the population will have to use.

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

In terms of costs, this is what Chat GBT threw up:

Operating a Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) multiplex in the UK involves several cost components:

1. Spectrum Fees:
• National Multiplexes: Each of the six national DTT multiplexes, managed by operators such as the BBC, Digital 3&4, SDN, and Arqiva, incurs an annual spectrum fee of £188,000. 
• Local Multiplexes: The local TV multiplex, operated by Comux UK, also pays an annual spectrum fee, with phased implementation details specified by Ofcom. 

2. Transmission and Maintenance Costs:
• Infrastructure Expenses: These include costs related to transmission equipment, site rentals, maintenance, and energy consumption. While specific figures vary based on the multiplex’s scale and coverage area, these operational expenses are substantial.

3. Licensing and Regulatory Fees:
• Ofcom Licenses: Operators must obtain the necessary licenses from Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator. Licensing fees vary depending on the multiplex’s scope and services offered. 

4. Content Delivery Network (CDN) Costs:
• Data Transmission: Multiplex operators may incur costs associated with delivering content to transmission sites, especially if utilizing third-party CDN services.

5. Administrative and Operational Expenses:
• Staffing and Overheads: Costs related to personnel, administrative operations, and other overheads are integral to multiplex management.

So it seems that precise costs are not easily available, but they are clearly significant otherwise so there would not be a problem in broadcasting on two platforms, but clearly, there is indeed a problem.

[jfman]

So we have no evidence of the costs merely the speculation that they are “significant”.

1) a figure in the small hundreds of thousands of pounds.
2) the infrastructure already exists - therefore the only relevant costs are maintenance.
3) do Ofcom do specific DTT only licences or are these the same for all broadcast platforms?
4) always enjoy the use of “may”. Presumably like 2 these mechanisms already exist.
5) not known

Until these unknown costs can be demonstrated to be higher than the revenue generated there’s no basis for the claim broadcasters will withdraw. You also ignore that the viewers forced to IP may not seamlessly transfer to watching the same content from the same provider given the plethora of new options that will be available. That’s a risk to the revenue stream that broadcasters on DTT lose prominence in millions of homes, and lose the rationale for any such prominence on IP based platforms.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So we have no evidence of the costs merely the speculation that they are “significant”.

1) a figure in the small hundreds of thousands of pounds.
2) the infrastructure already exists - therefore the only relevant costs are maintenance.
3) do Ofcom do specific DTT only licences or are these the same for all broadcast platforms?
4) always enjoy the use of “may”. Presumably like 2 these mechanisms already exist.
5) not known

Until these unknown costs can be demonstrated to be higher than the revenue generated there’s no basis for the claim broadcasters will withdraw. You also ignore that the viewers forced to IP may not seamlessly transfer to watching the same content from the same provider given the plethora of new options that will be available. That’s a risk to the revenue stream that broadcasters on DTT lose prominence in millions of homes, and lose the rationale for any such prominence on IP based platforms.

The broadcasters themselves don’t see it that way. And it is the broadcasters who are talking about the tipping point and the fact that running two systems side by side is uneconomic.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

May I remind you that 2030 is a mere five years away, so I stand by my comment that broadband rollout is nearing completion.

You can stand by it all you want, its still wrong (as usual). Five years is not "nearing completion".

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The broadcasters themselves don’t see it that way. And it is the broadcasters who are talking about the tipping point and the fact that running two systems side by side is uneconomic.

They do see it that way, which is why they want to tie the system closing to them exiting it. They also want handed prominent slots on online platforms.

If the system is still up someone else would step in. Channel 5 would be falling over themselves for ITV1s slot, ITV1 for BBC 1s etc.

OB

In terms of costs, this is what Chat GBT threw up:

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/a...te-study-says/

AI search engines cite incorrect news sources at an alarming 60% rate, study says

Citation error rates varied notably among the tested platforms. Perplexity provided incorrect information in 37 percent of the queries tested, whereas ChatGPT Search incorrectly identified 67 percent (134 out of 200) of articles queried. Grok 3 demonstrated the highest error rate, at 94 percent. In total, researchers ran 1,600 queries across the eight different generative search tools.

The study highlighted a common trend among these AI models: rather than declining to respond when they lacked reliable information, the models frequently provided plausible-sounding but incorrect or speculative answers—known technically as confabulations. The researchers emphasized that this behavior was consistent across all tested models, not limited to just one tool.

Wait, hang on …

rather than declining to respond when they lacked reliable information, the models frequently provided plausible-sounding but incorrect or speculative answers—known technically as confabulations.

Old Boy is an AI

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

May I remind you that 2030 is a mere five years away, so I stand by my comment that broadband rollout is nearing completion.

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------



I am well aware of Ofcom’s reference to ‘possible solutions’. They’ve been wrong before. Remember their rubbishing of Project Kangaroo?

I’m concentrating on what the broadcasting industry is doing and the fact the continuing to run two systems is unnecessarily costly for them.

Your constant demeaning of things people write which you don’t agree with does not enhance your reputation, Chris. You have failed to address the points I have made in that post.This was a discussion forum last time I looked, but it seems that anyone who disagrees with your perspective is an idiot according to you.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------



The conclusion you came to (highlighted in bold) does not really add up, Richard. You asked ‘why were they going to move over to streaming their content’, to which they replied ‘it’s pointless broadcasting in a format that nobody is using.’

So given that they are moving to streaming, how does that fit with the rest of the statement, which indicates that they don’t envisage people sticking with DTT in sufficient numbers, and your conclusion that this means they will carry on with traditional methods for as long as possible?

Until it's no longer cost effective, if possible,the broadcasters will want to continue using the cheapest form of emission to reach a mass audience as opposed to doing it online.

Once enough have moved over to getting their TV online, it means that the BBC will have no choice but to close their legacy system and use the more expensive online solution.

Originally Posted by Chris

Wait, hang on …



Old Boy is an AI

More of a Nonularity than a Singularity, methinks…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

You can stand by it all you want, its still wrong (as usual). Five years is not "nearing completion".

It is in the context of the length of time the rollout has been continuing.

---------- Post added at 23:39 ---------- Previous post was at 23:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/a...te-study-says/

Maybe so, Hugh, but can you actually dispute these results?

[jfman]

There aren’t any results of note to dispute, OB.

In the absence of actual figures for much of it and how these costs are spread between all of the broadcasters who share the DTT system, and how much of there costs exclusively apply to broadcasting on DTT (as opposed to being broadcast on satellite, cable or streaming platforms) it’s all very “how long is a piece of string?”.