The future of television

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

The problem is this is a discussion forum. We don’t just state opinions, we turn them over, weigh them up, agree or disagree. Which is why you are repeatedly told that your opinion on this is a reflection of wishful thinking and an assumption that your preferred method of consuming TV is the one that everyone will one day adopt. You see yourself as forward thinking and ahead of the curve. Other people disagree with you. And your mildly indignant spluttering (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is evident in phrases like of course I know there are many options! What planet are you lot on?) is a function of the fact that in disagreeing with your opinion on this, you feel like other people are effectively questioning your lifestyle.

epsilon implied I didn’t consider other options - which is pretty well in line with what others on this thread have been saying. So my response was appropriate.

You repeat your incorrect belief that my opinion is a reflection of wishful thinking. No. I don’t ‘wish’ that the conventional TV channels will close down, I have merely said that I think that will happen. The PSBs are looking to an internet based future but that goes right over your heads, doesn’t it?

I don’t see what my lifestyle has to do with anything. You are clutching at straws in your effort to respond to my posts, but you have nothing to say. For example, WHY is the TV industry moving in exactly the direction I predicted back in 2015? ‘Digital First’ is the mantra now, and they do not see terrestrial broadcasting being worthwhile after 2035. It may not even last that long.

But of course, you know different. Why is that not a surprise?

You are conflating "PSBs are looking at an internet base future" with "conventional TV channels will close down", when the two things are different…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You are conflating "PSBs are looking at an internet base future" with "conventional TV channels will close down", when the two things are different…

I’m not confusing it at all. The opinion being aired on here is that we won’t go IP only AND the TV channels are safe.

I disagree with both.

No, you’re saying that’s what they’re saying, which isn’t the same thing.

People are saying PSB requirements mean that it’s unlikely that these channels won’t still exist after 2035, and separately that there is likely to be a mix of IP delivery and other delivery methods, such (potentially) satellite, DTT, 5G, and others…

For instance

https://www.5g-mag.com/post/lte-base...o-distribution

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, you’re saying that’s what they’re saying, which isn’t the same thing.

People are saying PSB requirements mean that it’s unlikely that these channels won’t still exist after 2035, and separately that there is likely to be a mix of IP delivery and other delivery methods, such (potentially) satellite, DTT, 5G, and others…

For instance

https://www.5g-mag.com/post/lte-base...o-distribution

Hugh - the PSB requirements are under review.

I doubt those views expressed in your post will hold up. Yes, I know it is a popular view on here that there will be a mix, but do you really believe that Skywill continue topay for expensive transponders when an alternative is available that will save them money?

Additionally, carrying on the live TV channels is an extra burden and an extra cost to broadcasters. I think the only thing that will save the conventional TV channels is the government itself.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

episilon, of course I know there are many options! What planet are you lot on?

All I am saying is that of all the options, barring government intervention, this is what I see happening.

Why are you having such a problem with that? And yes, I get it that you and others disagree. That is your right, of course. But I have no such rights to have an opinion that varies with yours. I get that, too.

I obviously don't have a problem with you "knowing" that there are other options. The problem is that you clearly know there are other options but then go on to define the future, solely based on your favoured option.
That isn't the future, it's a projection of your blinkered view.

---------- Post added at 00:46 ---------- Previous post was at 00:38 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Hugh - the PSB requirements are under review.

I doubt those views expressed in your post will hold up. Yes, I know it is a popular view on here that there will be a mix, but do you really believe that Skywill continue topay for expensive transponders when an alternative is available that will save them money?

Additionally, carrying on the live TV channels is an extra burden and an extra cost to broadcasters. I think the only thing that will save the conventional TV channels is the government itself.

PSB requirements have always been under review but there is no suggestion that they will be abolished.
Under review such as the debate over imposing a levy on streamers to fund UK based production which the DCMS seem to favour at the moment?

[GrimUpNorth]

I wonder if in these uncertain times using the system as a backup for GPS would be another reason to keep it switched on, and if it's there and working why not keep using it?

Link

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

I wonder if in these uncertain times using the system as a backup for GPS would be another reason to keep it switched on, and if it's there and working why not keep using it?

Link

An alternative to GPS is strategically worthwhile but changing to a system that supports BPS is questionable. I wonder if it is something that could be built into DAB transmitters. The main issue, as I see it, is can UK terrestrial networks support this? Is there enough transmitter overlap to facilitate a working level of triangulation? A system built from scratch on cellular networks might be more appropriate.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by epsilon

I obviously don't have a problem with you "knowing" that there are other options. The problem is that you clearly know there are other options but then go on to define the future, solely based on your favoured option.
That isn't the future, it's a projection of your blinkered view.

You have just proved my point. Clearly, you and others cannot understand that my prediction as to what will happen is simply what I think will happen. I have acknowledged on a number of occasions that I could be wrong.

It is also true to say that I haven’t deviated much from how I see IPTV playing out, and I haven’t deviated much from that view, but I have never said that my prediction will come about no matter what.

---------- Post added at 17:49 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Originally Posted by epsilon

PSB requirements have always been under review but there is no suggestion that they will be abolished.
Under review such as the debate over imposing a levy on streamers to fund UK based production which the DCMS seem to favour at the moment?

It appears that the main thrust of Ofcom’s view will be that PSBs must ‘innovate in content delivery, ensuring that they remain competitive and relevant. This involves embracing new technologies and platforms to reach audiences effectively.’

This does not necessarily mean that the government will require PSB channels to remain open, although of course, it’s possible that they might. But it’s not what the TV industry wants to see. They want just one means of transmission over the internet and ease of loading content.

So it’s an open question as to the eventual outcome, but I’ve told you what I think.

Is this clear enough for you?

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You have just proved my point. Clearly, you and others cannot understand that my prediction as to what will happen is simply what I think will happen. I have acknowledged on a number of occasions that I could be wrong.

It is also true to say that I haven’t deviated much from how I see IPTV playing out, and I haven’t deviated much from that view, but I have never said that my prediction will come about no matter what.

I haven't proved anything, you are just demonstrating how you apply your blinkered view to absolutely everything.

It appears that the main thrust of Ofcom’s view will be that PSBs must ‘innovate in content delivery, ensuring that they remain competitive and relevant. This involves embracing new technologies and platforms to reach audiences effectively.’

This does not necessarily mean that the government will require PSB channels to remain open, although of course, it’s possible that they might. But it’s not what the TV industry wants to see. They want just one means of transmission over the internet and ease of loading content.

So it’s an open question as to the eventual outcome, but I’ve told you what I think.

Is this clear enough for you?

Ofcom doesn't really have a view, they are there to regulate, not to make policy. I think you will find that the DCMS is responsible for PSB policy.
And pointing out that it is only what you think without proclaiming that "this is the future" is, at least, some progress.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by epsilon

I haven't proved anything, you are just demonstrating how you apply your blinkered view to absolutely everything.

I have proved that you are not listening. I tell you I am aware of the options and I have concluded that my prediction is still valid, and you say I’m ‘blinkered’, which is hilarious. I’m blinkered because I have expressed an opinion that you disagree with, even when I tell you I’ve weighed up the options and acknowledge I could be wrong?

You are just being intolerant to other ideas and argumentative. You need to think again about who is ‘blinkered’. Why can you not just discuss the issue and help us to understand your reasoning?

Originally Posted by epsilon

Ofcom doesn't really have a view, they are there to regulate, not to make policy. I think you will find that the DCMS is responsible for PSB policy.
And pointing out that it is only what you think without proclaiming that "this is the future" is, at least, some progress.

Of course Ofcom will have a view. It’s considering the consultation results and it will make its recommendations to the government. It is at that point, DCMS will weigh it all up and come to a decision.

I have made it abundantly clear that my prediction is what I believe to be the future. There’s a difference.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I have proved that you are not listening. I tell you I am aware of the options and I have concluded that my prediction is still valid, and you say I’m ‘blinkered’, which is hilarious. I’m blinkered because I have expressed an opinion that you disagree with, even when I tell you I’ve weighed up the options and acknowledge I could be wrong?

You are just being intolerant to other ideas and argumentative. You need to think again about who is ‘blinkered’. Why can you not just discuss the issue and help us to understand your reasoning?

You certainly haven't proved that I'm not listening but you have confirmed that you aren't listening. You are harping on about being aware of other opinions which is irrelevant. You didn't listen to my original point.

Far from suggesting that you aren't aware of other options, I'm all too aware that you know damn well that there are other options. My point was that, knowing these alternatives, you completely ignored them and went on to conclude "the future" solely based on your own view. That IS being blinkered.

I'm tolerant of any ideas as long as they are stated as ideas and opinions and not dressed up as an inevitable "future".

Deflection, obfuscation and gaslighting may work well for you over on the hard right echo chamber you moderate. As you keep demonstrating, it gets you nowhere on this forum.

Of course Ofcom will have a view. It’s considering the consultation results and it will make its recommendations to the government. It is at that point, DCMS will weigh it all up and come to a decision.

I have made it abundantly clear that my prediction is what I believe to be the future. There’s a difference.

Ofcom's "view" isn't relevant, they are there to regulate, to smooth the way for implementing the "views" of the DCMS and for conducting consultations with stakeholders and the with the public. They can make recommendations based on research and evidence they have gathered but they cannot legislate. If you wish, you can even refer to the consultations as Ofcom's view, even though that isn't the case.

What you "believe" to be the future is an opinion, yes, a belief, you know, like kids believe in Santa....

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by epsilon

You certainly haven't proved that I'm not listening but you have confirmed that you aren't listening. You are harping on about being aware of other opinions which is irrelevant. You didn't listen to my original point.

Far from suggesting that you aren't aware of other options, I'm all too aware that you know damn well that there are other options. My point was that, knowing these alternatives, you completely ignored them and went on to conclude "the future" solely based on your own view. That IS being blinkered.

I'm tolerant of any ideas as long as they are stated as ideas and opinions and not dressed up as an inevitable "future".

Deflection, obfuscation and gaslighting may work well for you over on the hard right echo chamber you moderate. As you keep demonstrating, it gets you nowhere on this forum.

Ofcom's "view" isn't relevant, they are there to regulate, to smooth the way for implementing the "views" of the DCMS and for conducting consultations with stakeholders and the with the public. They can make recommendations based on research and evidence they have gathered but they cannot legislate. If you wish, you can even refer to the consultations as Ofcom's view, even though that isn't the case.

What you "believe" to be the future is an opinion, yes, a belief, you know, like kids believe in Santa....

I have NOT ignored the alternatives, epsilon! Why do you keep saying that? You don’t have access to my head!

I have considered those alternatives and I don’t think the ones you espouse are more compelling, although, once again (how many times…?) I acknowledge they are possible outcomes.

Have you not ever heard arguments that conflict with your belief in something and still rejected those alternative arguments because you think yours are stronger or more likely? Of course you have, but it doesn’t mean you haven’t listened and thought about them.

And once again, given that I have acknowledged in these threads that I may be wrong, you cannot with credibility then accuse me of concluding ‘the future’ must be my future and that’s that.

I have not deflected or anything else. On the contrary, all I seem to be getting is that I must be wrong and statements I have made get turned into something else, then criticised on that new and false definition of what I have said. You are the one deflecting because this, like other posts on this subject, turn into personal attacks and add nothing to the discussion.

I am happy, very happy, to answer your points one by one, but you don’t answer mine. Funny that, and I’m supposed to be the deflecting, blinkered one.

So, why exactly do you think I am wrong? Maybe at last we can have a serious discussion about this (lives in hope without holding breath…)

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I have NOT ignored the alternatives, epsilon! Why do you keep saying that? You don’t have access to my head!

I have considered those alternatives and I don’t think the ones you espouse are more compelling, although, once again (how many times…?) I acknowledge they are possible outcomes.

I don't generally "espouse alternatives" as I don't have, or wish to own, a crystal ball, there are still many options.

Maybe you could explain this...

The reality is, there will just be more shopping channels, channels showing old programmes and films and some music channels. While they will attract an audience, it will be a relatively small one, and the costs of transmitting them will not be met by the income these channels will bring in when the big hitters leave. It will simply not be worth it.

"The reality is, there will just be more shopping channels". Do explain how this "reality" in your comment is taking other options into consideration. It's a firm conclusion based on your opinion. Which other alternatives does it explicitly consider? I can't see any. Invisible ink maybe?

As far as terrestrial networks go, the UK is lagging behind other European countries with similar viewing patterns. The UK has no strategic planning for broadcasting and the network is sleep walking into obsolescence. We will probably end up doing a u-turn, as Ireland has with DAB, closing down the network then realising it was all a big mistake. Followed by a mad dash to reintroduce a transmitter network with more advanced technology. That's what happens when something is closed down without considering the implications.

https://www.worlddab.org/news/15160/plans-underway-to-bring-back-high-powered-dab+-multiplexes-to-ireland

[OLD BOY]

OK, let’s clarify what I am actually saying in terms of my prediction.

Firstly, I originally concluded that (conventional) TV channels would cease to be, in favour of streaming. This appeared to be a logical step for the industry. As more and more content was being taken up by the streamers, it was clear that the leftovers would go to the TV channels, thus devaluing their content. As content deteriorated in quality and the channels relied more and more on archive material, most of the audience sought after by advertisers would migrate to the streamers. Over time, our conventional TV channels would close down, eventually leading to total migration of content to the streamers. I said all this would happen within 20 years.

Fast forward 10 years to the present day, and the streamers have proliferated. We have already lost some of our popular channels, such as Disney and FX. The broadcasters are emphasising ‘Digital First’ strategies to encourage viewers to use the streamers instead of the channels. Sky is no longer promoting satellite TV (Sky Q is being replaced in these promotions by Sky Stream and Sky Glass, which both are focussed primarily on streaming).

Cable is going the same way, and the writing on the wall for TiVo and 360 boxes is clear. Both boxes will be superseded by Virgin Flex eventually as the company seeks to put most of its efforts into broadband.

One thing that I did not expect is the recent explosion of streaming channels, first seen on Pluto. I think these may turn out to be a five minute wonder, because there is no publicly available schedule, no means of recording, and drama series are difficult to follow. I do acknowledge, however, that the lack of advance scheduling information could be remedied and that the difficulty in following drama series on a streaming channel can be overcome by resorting to the ‘on demand’ alternative, as provided by Pluto. But this is also evidence that the on demand system is superior to the streaming channels, and people will come to see this.

Some say that scheduled TV for the PSB channels could continue on IP, which is true, but the dwindling audiences that are already in evidence will eventually render this as financially unviable. The existence of the streaming channels do not prove that the bigger operators, with their much bigger budgets and overheads, will find this method at all worthwhile. The streaming channels phenomenon is entirely dependent on archive material and ‘YouTube’ style content.

I very much welcome the recent tendency for free streaming and reduced cost streaming with advertisements. This is quite different from how things appeared 10 years ago, when the big players were only offering subscription based alternatives to broadcast channels. Indeed, this was seen at the time to be a big draw because at last, we were free of unwanted advertising. The CEO of Netflix was quoted as saying that Netflix would never entertain advertisements. However, with the proliferation of new streamers all competing with one another, income generation reduced, and advertising options became attractive. I view this as a good thing, because it makes access to good streaming content more inclusive.

Moving on to the more recent debate on here, Ofcom is currently reviewing the whole scenario we are now facing, and PSB broadcasting is an important aspect of their review.

Ofcom’s own ‘realistic trajectory’ is as follows:

Between now and 2027: Hybrid systems (live channels over IP + streamers). Players still depend on live feeds for news/sports.

2027 - 2032: Gradual decline in channel-based delivery. Some niche or low-rating channels may be dropped entirely in favour of VOD.

2032+: Possible phase-out of the ‘channel’ concept altogether for many broadcasters except possibly for news and sports events.

That’s what Ofcom thinks, but I would go further. I think that Sky will stop using its transponders when existing satellite contracts run out and it will cease providing signals to its Sky Q boxes. Virgin will probably do the same around that time. Although a reduced number of channels appear on Sky Stream, Sky Glass and Virgin Flex, migration to the service and their emphasis on streaming is likely to lead to a marked decline in the number of these viewers watching the broadcast channels. That will reduce advertising income still further for the broadcast channels, rendering the terrestrial medium even more unattractive.

The support for live channels over IP seems to rely on arguments about the continuing need for live channels dedicated to news, sports and other live events (even though there is no reason why these cannot be accommodated on a streamer - eg premier football matches on Amazon); older viewers rely heavily on scheduled TV; and some people just like the positive experience of ‘channel hopping’. However, it should be noted that some manufacturers are working on “senior-friendly” modes for digital navigation, which I believe are easily addressed. As for ‘channel hopping’ what’s wrong with content hopping?

I don’t dispute that there may be government intervention, but I believe that if there were consultations with the broadcasters about leaving at least a basic live TV service going, the government would be expected to cough up. Given that the government is strapped for cash, how likely do you think this will be?

I will leave it there for the time being, but I hope that makes my position clear. While there are other possible outcomes to this, I think that the views of the TV industry and the cost of keeping existing terrestrial infrastructure going will be the big influencers in what is decided in the end. What the viewer wants is a secondary consideration, not the determinant, as some would have it.

That is my prediction, overlaid with some supporting facts, nothing more. Other views are available.