The future of television

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Joining POP, another kids channel, back in linear world. And it’s not just young kids, the kidults who are the main target for BBC Three weren’t watching in sufficient numbers when that channel went on-demand only, so they brought it back.

Linear schedules are going nowhere because they serve a useful purpose. Anyone who hasn’t spent the last 10 years staking their reputation on their extinction can see that.

Going back onto the EPG as linear channels obviously didn't work out for them as the Pop channels will be closing down next month.

The Pop Player app and website, which combines content from Pop, Tiny Pop, and Pop Max, will remain available, as will streaming-only versions of the channels.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Going back onto the EPG as linear channels obviously didn't work out for them as the Pop channels will be closing down next month.

The Pop Player app and website, which combines content from Pop, Tiny Pop, and Pop Max, will remain available, as will streaming-only versions of the channels.

Wrong.

They’re ceasing traditional RF broadcast, but they will continue to offer a linear schedule over IP.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Wrong.

They’re ceasing traditional RF broadcast, but they will continue to offer a linear schedule over IP.

They won't be on the EPG as linear channels, you're just splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They won't be on the EPG as linear channels, you're just splitting hairs.

Eh?

The linear (or not) nature of content delivery is a major aspect of this entire discussion. Have you gone wading in without bothering to understand the context (again)?

FAST channels have an EPG. The platform has developed piecemeal so EPGs for linear channels delivered over IP lack a unifying brand name (Freeview and Freesat are, at the end of the day, brand names for an EPG more than anything else, even though the branding encompasses the entire user experience). But nevertheless they all have one.

Notwithstanding any of the above, the major bone of contention ever since this thread and its predecessors got going was whether or not the advent of on-demand streaming services meant that linear scheduled broadcast TV was doomed to end.

FAST channels are the very reason why on-demand streaming *will not* become the exclusive delivery method for TV. Free, Advert-Supported TV over internet protocol, IP being the delivery technology most of us will be using 10 years from now.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Eh?

The linear (or not) nature of content delivery is a major aspect of this entire discussion. Have you gone wading in without bothering to understand the context (again)?

FAST channels have an EPG. The platform has developed piecemeal so EPGs for linear channels delivered over IP lack a unifying brand name (Freeview and Freesat are, at the end of the day, brand names for an EPG more than anything else, even though the branding encompasses the entire user experience). But nevertheless they all have one.

Notwithstanding any of the above, the major bone of contention ever since this thread and its predecessors got going was whether or not the advent of on-demand streaming services meant that linear scheduled broadcast TV was doomed to end.

FAST channels are the very reason why on-demand streaming *will not* become the exclusive delivery method for TV. Free, Advert-Supported TV over internet protocol, IP being the delivery technology most of us will be using 10 years from now.

Is there any need to speak to people with known cognitive problems like this? If a member had dementia, would you make rude comments to them for not remembering something or repeating something?

AIUI, they won't be on the EPG's of the traditional broadcasters as FAST channels or anything else, is this not correct?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Is there any need to speak to people with known cognitive problems like this? If a member had dementia, would you make rude comments to them for not remembering something or repeating something?

AIUI, they won't be on the EPG's of the traditional broadcasters as FAST channels or anything else, is this not correct?

We expect members engaging in discussions either to understand the context of the topic they wish to engage in, or else *ask*, as you have belatedly done here. You have been told this often enough.

FAST channels won’t be on the Freesat, Freeview or VM EPG because these EPGs are designed to list channels delivered by satellite, terrestrial, or cable broadcast, as the case may be. FAST channels are delivered over IP and they appear in EPGs dedicated to IP delivery. This is a nascent technology and EPGs for FAST-IP channels are fragmented. But don’t forget there was no coherent EPG for free-to-air satellite TV for many years; your choices were either an un-subbed sky box which listed more locked subscription channels than free ones in its EPG or any number of different implementations from different receiver manufacturers, of varying quality.

I have attached a screen shot of the Pluto.tv EPG to this post to illustrated what a FAST service provider EPG presently looks like. I suspect a few years from now, this sort of provision will find its way into Freely, the IP-EPG for public service broadcasters.

[RichardCoulter]

But there are FAST channels on the Virgin EPG

A commercial decision by Virgin

[Mr K]

FAST channels stop the punters fast forwarding through ads. Thats why VM and it advertising paymasters are keen on it, and why they are pushing streaming boxes.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

FAST channels stop the punters fast forwarding through ads. Thats why VM and it advertising paymasters are keen on it, and why they are pushing streaming boxes.

Precisely.

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Joining POP, another kids channel, back in linear world. And it’s not just young kids, the kidults who are the main target for BBC Three weren’t watching in sufficient numbers when that channel went on-demand only, so they brought it back.

Linear schedules are going nowhere because they serve a useful purpose. Anyone who hasn’t spent the last 10 years staking their reputation on their extinction can see that.

They are not going anywhere until the change to IPTV only, although channels will still close in the meantime, in line with the overall trend.

As for whether the channels will continue to exist after the changeover, this is the crucial area of debate. It’s interesting to note that even some of our FAST channels besides those on Pluto TV are now being offered on demand. It’ll be interesting to see where the audience goes.

https://www.advanced-television.com/...ent-on-demand/

[EXTRACT]

Virgin Media O2 is giving Virgin TV customers access to linear FAST channel content via VoD at no extra cost.

All Virgin TV customers can now watch episodes from their favourite FAST channel shows whenever suits them outside of the linear TV schedule. Customers can access the catch-up content via Virgin Media’s On Demand streaming app as well as via the Search function on their home screen.

It's almost as if giving viewers a choice was good business...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's almost as if giving viewers a choice was good business...

Well, as I have said before, it’s the broadcasters themselves who want IPTV only. I’m not saying whether that’s a good or bad thing for viewers, but I do see where the broadcasters are coming from.

Why do you believe a switch to 100% IP delivery will mean the end of linear schedules?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Why do you believe a switch to 100% IP delivery will mean the end of linear schedules?

Because maintaining linear channels is an extra cost to the broadcasters and new original content now tends to go to the streamers. A lot of work goes into assembling the schedules, working out timings and slotting in advertisements. It’s far easier just to upload to an on demand system and not worry about time constraints and filling in blank spaces. The broadcasters themselves say they don’t want to maintain two systems as it is added cost.

The FAST channels will continue if the demand is there. They are cheap and easy to assemble, the content is cheap and practically everything is second hand material. Some of our traditional channels may still exist as streaming channels if the government requires it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Because maintaining linear channels is an extra cost to the broadcasters and new original content now tends to go to the streamers. A lot of work goes into assembling the schedules, working out timings and slotting in advertisements. It’s far easier just to upload to an on demand system and not worry about time constraints and filling in blank spaces. The broadcasters themselves say they don’t want to maintain two systems as it is added cost.

The FAST channels will continue if the demand is there. They are cheap and easy to assemble, the content is cheap and practically everything is second hand material. Some of our traditional channels may still exist as streaming channels if the government requires it.

The FAST channels are linear channels and they exist because the demand is there. All your observations have merit but your conclusions don’t fit your observations - you can see as well as I can that FAST channels came out of nowhere to occupy a space created for on-demand streaming because there is a demand even amongst people who are comfortable with IP delivered television for a pre-determined linear stream.

Once you accept the logic of meeting market demand for a linear scedule, you also accept the same logic that goes with everything else in a competitive marketplace - your offering must be more compelling than your competitor’s. The additional effort required - accurate scheduling of programmes and advertisements, deciding what shows to place where in order to draw in and hold on to an audience - becomes marketing spend that pays a return. Though I also think you’re over-stating how difficult it is for an established professional TV channel with its own play-out suite to actually do all that stuff.

Aside from all that, as long as it is necessary to maintain legacy delivery networks, whether cable, terrestrial, satellite or some combination of those, linear schedules will have to continue to exist because that’s the only way to deliver TV over those networks. I still think your imagined timetable for final shut-off of those networks is wildly optimistic.