The future of television

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

It has nothing to do with lack of understanding OB. It’s simply mild exasperation at your lack of self-awareness. Whenever you write a sentence that includes the phrase ‘it would make sense to…’ or ‘all that is required…’ you’re skipping over the whole part where you have to convince multimillion-dollar broadcast companies *why* they should radically overturn their own cost-effective business models in order to satisfy your own vision of the future - a vision that has everything to do with what you personally find convenient and nothing to do with even a moment’s reflection on the mere possibility that not everyone wants to use their TV the way you do.

You talk a good game, OB, but so does everyone who calls their post-match local radio phone-in at 6 o’clock on a Saturday evening.

I’m not even convinced he personally finds it convenient.

It was an edgy call in 2014, pushed back at least once, he’s desperately keen to avoid extending once more.
Thus the onus is on Sky, Virgin, etc - the multimillion dollar companies you reference - to “make it work”.

Less than half of Generation Z watch broadcast TV

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgm9z1dpkpo

For the first time, less than half of 16 to 24-year-olds are now watching traditional TV - live and catch-up programming, on a television set at home - each week.

It lists a few reasons, but the main one for me isnt listed - there is just nothing worth watching anymore.

I was one of the 12.1 million that watched the New Years Eve fireworks, but other than, there is pretty much nothing for me.

The main thing I still used to watch was Doctor Who - I gave up on the current nonsense, besides which its on Disney+ first now anyway.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not even convinced he personally finds it convenient.

It was an edgy call in 2014, pushed back at least once, he’s desperately keen to avoid extending once more.
Thus the onus is on Sky, Virgin, etc - the multimillion dollar companies you reference - to “make it work”.

I'm really not concerned about this date, which, incidentally, has always been in 20 years time from 2015. It was simply what I thought at the time, but interestingly, that date (2035) still seems entirely possible.

You seem more bothered than me about whether that date is actually met spot on, which is a bit silly, really.

---------- Post added at 08:32 ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Less than half of Generation Z watch broadcast TV

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgm9z1dpkpo



It lists a few reasons, but the main one for me isnt listed - there is just nothing worth watching anymore.

I was one of the 12.1 million that watched the New Years Eve fireworks, but other than, there is pretty much nothing for me.

The main thing I still used to watch was Doctor Who - I gave up on the current nonsense, besides which its on Disney+ first now anyway.

And that is exactly why people are deserting traditional channels for the streamers. Audiences will follow the content.

---------- Post added at 08:35 ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

It has nothing to do with lack of understanding OB. It’s simply mild exasperation at your lack of self-awareness. Whenever you write a sentence that includes the phrase ‘it would make sense to…’ or ‘all that is required…’ you’re skipping over the whole part where you have to convince multimillion-dollar broadcast companies *why* they should radically overturn their own cost-effective business models in order to satisfy your own vision of the future - a vision that has everything to do with what you personally find convenient and nothing to do with even a moment’s reflection on the mere possibility that not everyone wants to use their TV the way you do.

You talk a good game, OB, but so does everyone who calls their post-match local radio phone-in at 6 o’clock on a Saturday evening.

I am looking at this from both the business and audience point of view, Chtis.

How can a 'cost effective business model' work if you starve the traditional channels of content? Because that's exactly what is happening before your eyes.

[jfman]

Which linear broadcast channels have reduced their hours on the basis of their being less content available?

There’s plenty of content out there. There has never been more content.

In practice you have such a dystopian view of the future that the exact same series on a “streamer” would be good and on a linear channel like ITV1 would be bad without consideration of the content at all.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which linear broadcast channels have reduced their hours on the basis of their being less content available?

There’s plenty of content out there. There has never been more content.

In practice you have such a dystopian view of the future that the exact same series on a “streamer” would be good and on a linear channel like ITV1 would be bad without consideration of the content at all.

Jfman, please open your eyes. There may be no shortage of content, but the issue is the quality of that content. Channels are not reducing their hours, they are closing down. We have lost popular channels such as FX and Disney; Channel 4 has just announced the closure of five music channels; Sky is desperate to shore up its channels by duplicating programmes on Sky Showcase and the Sky Cinema channels are relying even more on the showing of films that they have shown before. The best content is going to the streamers and the TV channels are losing out.

I’m glad you are perfectly happy with this situation, jfman, but many of us are not, and that’s why so many are resorting to the streamers. Soon, they will stop paying for TV channels altogether, because everything will be on the streamers. The TV channels will either die off naturally or the plug will be pulled at some point.

There are more free options coming along now as well, which will encourage Freeview only viewers to opt in as the new Freely service takes over.

I’m not ‘gagging’ for all this, which you claim persistently - I am merely observing what I see in front of my eyes. I don’t really understand why you are getting so exercised about it - it’s not me making it happen!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’m glad you are perfectly happy with this situation, jfman, but many of us are not

If you are unhappy about the content on linear channels then you are more than free to subscribe to any streamer you please. Why are you unhappy? Why are you pushing for state intervention to accelerate it?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

If you are unhappy about the content on linear channels when you are more than free to subscribe to any streamer you please. Why are you unhappy? Why are you pushing for state intervention to accelerate it?

I do subscribe to the streamers I want, jfman, and once absolutely everything is available on demand, I will ditch the channels altogether. There are still one or two programmes that are not available on the streamers, but we are nearly there now. Virgin Stream may be the way to go for us.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I do subscribe to the streamers I want, jfman, and once absolutely everything is available on demand, I will ditch the channels altogether. There are still one or two programmes that are not available on the streamers, but we are nearly there now. Virgin Stream may be the way to go for us.

So why are you unhappy? Maybe if we can get to the crux of that it’d spare us these circuitous threads?

What’s so special about Virgin Stream over their standard TV packages with recording features?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by alanrogger007

I think we're all just waiting for the day when everything is available on demand and we can ditch traditional TV channels for good

I don’t think those who can’t get adequate broadband speeds are thinking that, to be fair. Everything is on demand for everyone who wants it in any case. There’s no benefit to ditching traditional tv channels for some time.

Just spent a few days at a holiday park in Cumbria. Wi-fi varied between 4 and 20 meg, 4G got 20-30. Enough to support a handful of “streaming” users at most.

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think those who can’t get adequate broadband speeds are thinking that, to be fair. Everything is on demand for everyone who wants it in any case. There’s no benefit to ditching traditional tv channels for some time.

Just spent a few days at a holiday park in Cumbria. Wi-fi varied between 4 and 20 meg, 4G got 20-30. Enough to support a handful of “streaming” users at most.

You’re lucky it wasn’t busier with people - 4G download is up to 150Mbps with a solid signal and nobody else on the same cell as you, but 4G phones are now ubiquitous and they all use a lot more data in the background than when the service first launched. I could get more than 100Mbps with an external antenna on a 4G router at Loch Lomond in the winter but once all the campsites fill up, it would be 2Mbps or less at times.

Freesat and Freeview together provide access to free-to-air TV to more than 99% of the UK population. That’s the level super fast broadband access will have to get to before it is viable enough as an alternative for those services to be switched off. And even then, nobody has yet begun talking about the fact that broadband isn’t free. At present once you pay your TV licence you can access whatever you want. If our TV service goes IP only, then you have to pay for fast broadband service as well.

Originally Posted by alanrogger007

I think we're all just waiting for the day when everything is available on demand and we can ditch traditional TV channels for good

I can assure you we are not.

I am not looking forward to 2028 when Sky via Satellite is likely to end, and will instead have to rely on the internet.

[Mr K]

Does seem a big backward step to depend totally on one broadband connection - phone, tv , and interweb. One outage and you're stuffed for all 3 services. . Atm they are all independent of each other, in my house anyway. Even if the electricity goes down, my old-fashioned land line phone will work (Vm haven't 'upgraded' it to voip yet).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So why are you unhappy? Maybe if we can get to the crux of that it’d spare us these circuitous threads?

What’s so special about Virgin Stream over their standard TV packages with recording features?

I am not ‘unhappy’! Where are you getting these views from?

I am excited by the changes coming, but you are petrified. Why?

All I am doing is describing what I believe will soon be reality and drawing attention to the fact that we are getting towards that place.

Virgin Stream has the attraction of providing most of the popular streamers, with a watchlist, without having to pay for the TV channels. Haven’t I always described this as what I wanted to happen?

The reason I like this is because I have a lot of choice of what I want to watch, with no restriction of when I can watch it.

Your views as expressed on here appear to be steeped in the past. I understand that that is how you think, but it won’t stop the streamers from continuing to advance at the expense of the TV channels.

---------- Post added at 20:28 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think those who can’t get adequate broadband speeds are thinking that, to be fair. Everything is on demand for everyone who wants it in any case. There’s no benefit to ditching traditional tv channels for some time.

Just spent a few days at a holiday park in Cumbria. Wi-fi varied between 4 and 20 meg, 4G got 20-30. Enough to support a handful of “streaming” users at most.

You are ignoring the fact that everything is becoming geared to streaming. The main British TV channels are promoting it and preparing for an all-streaming future.

Certain audiences may struggle with broadband speeds initially, but that will be sorted, and frankly, I cannot see TV companies want to continue having two methods of broadcasting, whatever some viewers and jfman think.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am not ‘unhappy’! Where are you getting these views from?

Your own words, OB.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’m glad you are perfectly happy with this situation, jfman, but many of us are not

I ask again why are you unhappy? What void exists in your life leaving you unfulfilled by the status quo where we’ve never had a more rich and diverse quantity of products in the pay-tv marketplace? (Setting aside the failing business models of “streamers” for a moment).

I am excited by the changes coming, but you are petrified. Why?

I assume you’ve missed me pointing out all the streaming services I subscribe to?

The difference is I’m able to disassociate in my mind my preferences as a consumer with the marketplace as a whole.

All I am doing is describing what I believe will soon be reality and drawing attention to the fact that we are getting towards that place.

Guesswork.

Virgin Stream has the attraction of providing most of the popular streamers, with a watchlist, without having to pay for the TV channels. Haven’t I always described this as what I wanted to happen?

Unsure how this is substantively different from the lowest priced triple play offering with a TV360.

The reason I like this is because I have a lot of choice of what I want to watch, with no restriction of when I can watch it.

As with every TV360 customer.

Your views as expressed on here appear to be steeped in the past. I understand that that is how you think, but it won’t stop the streamers from continuing to advance at the expense of the TV channels.

You’re showing your arse here, OB, by continuing to view both as distinct. Peacock in the USA, Now here, Discovery+ here all stream and offer both linear channels and on demand content over IP. Indeed, so does Virgin Stream!

You are ignoring the fact that everything is becoming geared to streaming. The main British TV channels are promoting it and preparing for an all-streaming future.

Often stated, never evidenced.

Certain audiences may struggle with broadband speeds initially, but that will be sorted, and frankly, I cannot see TV companies want to continue having two methods of broadcasting, whatever some viewers and jfman think.

Yet those that could move to entirely on demand offerings, don’t. You fail to ask yourself why this is.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Certain audiences may struggle with broadband speeds initially, but that will be sorted.

Sorted how ? and when ?