The future of television

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What confirmation?

Exactly, it didn't give you any.

I was simply making the point that DTT and IPTV are completely different because the latter was on demand rather than channel based. Previous big changes have not enabled such revolutionary change to the method by which broadcasters present their content.

The broadcasters have already shown their hand and their vision of an IPTV future. It is Freely, where broadcast channels continue to use DVB but delivered over IP rather than the transmitter network. The "on demand" exclusive version is entirely your own invention.

This is not about the availability of alternative means of scheduled channel delivery, it is about the changeover to on demand, which broadcasters find cheaper and easier to manage for reasons I have given on multiple occasions. THAT is the point, not ‘Is there an alternative method of delivery over the airwaves?’. As I said earlier, with diminishing audiences watching our traditional channels, the broadcasters are unwilling to continue to plough money into it.

Again, the broadcasters have already demonstrated their potential replacement for Freeview, it is Freely with, oh you know.. regular linear channels.

As for this point you make about compensation, where have I said anywhere that the government or anyone else had to pay compensation? What I am saying is that unless compensation is available, the broadcasters will be unwilling to keep funding the existing system.

Again, not what has happened with other forms of simulcasting.

This withering comment was about the FAST channels. I have already (how many times?) explained that these channels are run on the cheap and they simply don’t incur the same costs as the big five. You’ve only got to compare the content with the traditional channels to see that.

CNN operate their normal service as a FAST channel, as do most other news channels NHK World, France 24, DW etc. Same for your right wing buddies at Talk TV, OAN, Newsmax etc. You can't just pick a subset of cheap reality / old tv shows etc presented without continuity and use that to represent FAST channels as a whole.

The FAST channels were never a part of my prediction, but my view is that they will indeed survive the switchover to IPTV only. But don’t expect the likes of BBC, ITV and the rest to follow - they will stick with on demand because it saves them costs.

Again, as can be seen with Freely, they are continuing to broadcast linear channels and still using DVB but over IP. I don't expect this to get past your filter as it doesn't give you confirmation of your dream scenario.

Well, epsilon, with the bullying and hectoring way you guys react to opinions different from your own, is it any wonder that others don’t stick their heads above the parapet? I know for a fact that some people do agree with me, but they won’t say so on here, which is a shame. These are really interesting times, and people would expect to see intelligent debate on these issues, particularly on a forum like this.

Yeah, cry me a river! Not agreeing with you isn't the same as bullying and hectoring. Don't play the sympathy card just because things aren't going your way.

I don’t think you are grasping what I’m saying here. You can make as good a case as you like on how the existing DTT channels could be replicated in as many ways as you would want, but you have completely ignored or missed my point.

The broadcasters want to put out their content on demand via IPTV only. This is the issue you need to address because it is the one thing that is most likely to dictate which road is taken in the next few years.

If you don’t believe me, ask Tim Davie. As you know, the BBC is always to be relied upon to deliver the news correctly (or so you tell me on here)!

Another reminder needed here that Freely, the DTT "replacement", carries linear channels using DVB over IP. Filter Alert!!!

[1andrew1]

Cutting to the chase, the elephant in the room seems to be Freely.

If Old Boy is able to address the point as to why broadcasters are hmm, freely doing something that goes against his perception of what they want to do (to make their content on-demand only) then I think we may be able to make some useful progress on this thread.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Cutting to the chase, the elephant in the room seems to be Freely.

If Old Boy is able to address the point as to why broadcasters are hmm, freely doing something that goes against his perception of what they want to do (to make their content on-demand only) then I think we may be able to make some useful progress on this thread.

You are on a different planet, Andrew. I’m on planet Earth by the way, hi!

Of course Freely has TV channels on it. TV channels are still broadcasting, and will be for the next 5-10 years.

Freely was designed to show them during this transitional phase as well as providing on demand access, so what’s your point?

The main TV channels are likely to disappear within that timeframe. That is what the broadcasters envisage. Assuming that happens, Freely will still offer streaming channels but it won’t be able to offer conventional TV channels because, if all goes without a hitch, they will no longer exist.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are on a different planet, Andrew. I’m on planet Earth by the way, hi!

Thanks for visiting us. You may return to Mars now.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Of course Freely has TV channels on it. TV channels are still broadcasting, and will be for the next 5-10 years.

Freely was designed to show them during this transitional phase as well as providing on demand access, so what’s your point?

Broadcasters have done this voluntarily. If on-demand only was their preferred option, why have they contributed linear channels to Freely? No one's forcing them. Could it be that a large number of people still want to consume content this way.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The main TV channels are likely to disappear within that timeframe. That is what the broadcasters envisage. Assuming that happens, Freely will still offer streaming channels but it won’t be able to offer conventional TV channels because, if all goes without a hitch, they will no longer exist.

Broadcasters will do what their audiences prefer or government and regulators mandate. The proliferation of FAST channels when a wide range of streaming services exist show they're not going away anytime soon.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are on a different planet, Andrew. I’m on planet Earth by the way, hi!

Of course Freely has TV channels on it. TV channels are still broadcasting, and will be for the next 5-10 years.

Freely was designed to show them during this transitional phase as well as providing on demand access, so what’s your point?

The main TV channels are likely to disappear within that timeframe. That is what the broadcasters envisage. Assuming that happens, Freely will still offer streaming channels but it won’t be able to offer conventional TV channels because, if all goes without a hitch, they will no longer exist.

You do talk a lot of nonsense. Freely has introduced parallel DVB services over IP. These services are generally in HD, even when the over-the-air versions are sometimes in SD due to lack of capacity on the legacy multiplexes.
If there was any truth in your assertion that "Freely was designed to show them during this transitional phase", then surely they would have just left the traditional broadcast versions in place on Freely. The broadcasters have created a completely new infrastructure just for, wait for it...


traditional linear channels.

I feel like there should be a drum roll in there somewhere.

Originally Posted by epsilon

You do talk a lot of nonsense. Freely has introduced parallel DVB services over IP. These services are generally in HD, even when the over-the-air versions are sometimes in SD due to lack of capacity on the legacy multiplexes.
If there was any truth in your assertion that "Freely was designed to show them during this transitional phase", then surely they would have just left the traditional broadcast versions in place on Freely. The broadcasters have created a completely new infrastructure just for, wait for it...


traditional linear channels.

Originally Posted by Paul

I feel like there should be a drum roll in there somewhere.

[vincerooney]

whats happening with sky? do they have a deal with HBO still or is that over?

[TimeLord2018]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

whats happening with sky? do they have a deal with HBO still or is that over?

Not for new programming no, some "existing franchises and their future series" on a non exclusive basis through their term on Sky Atlantic but that's it , they have a non exclusive HBO Max app bundle agreement

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by epsilon

You do talk a lot of nonsense. Freely has introduced parallel DVB services over IP. These services are generally in HD, even when the over-the-air versions are sometimes in SD due to lack of capacity on the legacy multiplexes.
If there was any truth in your assertion that "Freely was designed to show them during this transitional phase", then surely they would have just left the traditional broadcast versions in place on Freely. The broadcasters have created a completely new infrastructure just for, wait for it...


traditional linear channels.

Your vision of the future only works if broadcasters decide to continue to support so-called linear or live TV in the future. I really don't care personally whether they do or don't but I've told you what I think.

My take on everything I've read on this subject is that only the FAST channels will ultimately survive this change.

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Broadcasters have done this voluntarily. If on-demand only was their preferred option, why have they contributed linear channels to Freely? No one's forcing them. Could it be that a large number of people still want to consume content this way.

Simply because they are still broadcasting live channels at the present time.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Broadcasters will do what their audiences prefer or government and regulators mandate. The proliferation of FAST channels when a wide range of streaming services exist show they're not going away anytime soon.

The broadcasters have their minds set on broadcasting all non-live broadcasting on demand, and live broadcasting will be shown as it is presently on NOW and other streaming platforms.

As an audisnce, we don't have as much control as you think. As long as the majority use streaming as all or part of their TV consumption, the broadcasters will have the confidence to make the change they want.

The government might expect the BBC to provide a channel for the minority, but that is all.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I really don't care personally whether they do or don't

LOL

[OLD BOY]

You are so convincing, Chris [COUGH]