The future of television

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

I posted my opinions on a discussion forum and people started discussing them

Except it wasn’t a discussion, was it? It was trolling, baiting and character assassination. Debating is one thing some forum members find difficult to cope with.

I must say, you lot are pretty good at ridicule. I wonder who will have the last laugh?

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I prefer to record my programmes rather than stream them as streaming services have expiry dates and sometimes don't have subtitles. They also don't have QuickView (though as Virgin are phasing this out, this is now a moot point),

I had hoped that if linear TV channels ended up being streamed instead of the traditional way, that the technology would allow us to continue recording them.

However, i've now discovered that ITV and (from the 27th) the BBC are to limit what you have recorded onto your hard drive to what's available via VOD if you receive your TV signal over the Internet on EE or BT TV.

I'm sure that this will be rolled out to other platforms and by other broadcasters for any devices with a recording facility (though the new Sky & Virgin streaming boxes don't have recording facilities anyway).

There's the usual spin about how TV is evolving and how it will benefit the consumer. How, exactly? If you record something not available on VOD, you won't be able to watch it. If it expires, you'll no longer be able to watch it.

I suspect that you'll no longer be able to FF through adverts on the commercial channels on your own recordings too.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...g-feature.html

This is not really news, Richard. If you stop subscribing to Sky Cinema programmes, you will find that all your recordings from these channels disappear. This has been the case for some time.

It is wrong, I agree. I do believe that you should be able to access all content from on demand on payment of a subscription or on pay per view. But we are in the hands of the content providers until such time that legislators decide to change it.

---------- Post added at 20:30 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

If only there was a way to confirm who gets most exercised about the subject, aside from your dissertation/diatribe night before last.

Oh wait, there is.

I must have spent most of my time on here answering your interminable questions on what is linear TV and other similar nonsense and your criticisms of points I’ve never even made. Despite seeing what you are doing, I’ve entered into the spirit of responding for those who are genuinely interested.

Look in the mirror, jfman.

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

My point is that OB’s claim of indifference doesn’t stack up. Evidenced by the multiple threads he’s generated on the same subject, and the tendency for many threads to be sidetracked by it being the reason for this one as Chris explains in post #1.

For any one post I put on here with one or more links, I get multiple trolling responses to which I try my best to respond with respect.

The rest is history, and it’s all here! ^

I can assure you, it matters not to me if we don’t exactly meet 2035! This seems to bother you rather than it does me! I simply stated how I think things would look in 20 years’ time (back in 2015).

I think at least a substantial amount, if not all, of my prediction so far is exactly on track. The only thing I didn’t anticipate was the advent of the FAST channels.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

baiting and character assassinationt.

there are some who become sweaty at the thought of a new shopping channel or the like launching...The regular contributors who continually bitch about what I say regarding the future of TV are slaves to the schedules, are obsessed with channel numbers and minute changes that they pick up on Virgin’s system that may (or more likely may not) indicate something major is about to happen. They are wedded to the idea that nothing will change as regards the systems on offer because of existing issues with new technology such as latency (that are being resolved). They actually don’t want anything to change.

For you guys, there will be some relief to savour with the FAST channels... But if you don’t mind selecting FAST channels for your viewing... well there’s no accounting for such a decadent choice when an online demand option is also available to select your programme of choice as and when you want to watch it, from the beginning. Pluto and others actually give you that option....I get that awe some of you have with FAST channels too, but I think that will wear off pretty soon...you guys will have to wake up or you’ll find yourself watching blank screens. Sometimes I get the feeling that one or two of you wouldn’t even notice.

Like it or not...that steadfastly conservative attitude that is in abundance on this forum is not going to do your credibility any good at all.

With that said, you will soon find, in the not so distant future, that the TNT Sports programmes are available on Discovery+ (or its successor) only, like it or not. Sorry, but it’s not my decision. It’s just the way it’s going...

Yes, OB. You've never baited anyone.

While we are relieved it's not your decision since it would leave millions without television at all just to lubricate your fantasy of no broadcast, linear television before the market - supply and demand side - is prepared for is.

If (when) 2035 comes to pass with linear, scheduled television continues it won't be because of 4 or 5 users of a niche technology forum. It's the millions of households absolutely passive to the idea at all. The millions who watch television "live" despite 5 or 6 tuner devices sitting below their TV. The cable customers who watch BBC live despite having it on demand for twenty years.

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think at least a substantial amount, if not all, of my prediction so far is exactly on track. The only thing I didn’t anticipate was the advent of the FAST channels.

The problem is your prediction is binary and you've relentlessly branded the notion of linear channels remaining as absurd. Whether as a minimalist DTT service, PSB or otherwise, or a series of channels to showcase the best pay-tv content available on Sky or anywhere else.

You've been posting about Pluto TV since 2015. I'd not talk yourself down, OB. You are a pioneer on the forum of the concept of linear-over-IP (FAST channels).

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...82&postcount=9

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes, OB. You've never baited anyone.

While we are relieved it's not your decision since it would leave millions without television at all just to lubricate your fantasy of no broadcast, linear television before the market - supply and demand side - is prepared for is.

If (when) 2035 comes to pass with linear, scheduled television continues it won't be because of 4 or 5 users of a niche technology forum. It's the millions of households absolutely passive to the idea at all. The millions who watch television "live" despite 5 or 6 tuner devices sitting below their TV. The cable customers who watch BBC live despite having it on demand for twenty years.

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

I’ve learned to give as good as I get on this Forum.

As for the rest of your post, you really don’t get it, do you? Viewers will not have the choice if the channels are wound up and replaced by on demand only. In the last 10 years, TV audiences have been watching less and less by way of our TV channels and audience growth for the streamers is pretty well the same as for the channels now. In another 10 years, the audience for the channels will have diminished to such an extent that to continue supporting them will no longer be worthwhile and there will be the same old content on repeat, watched by people advertisers are not so interested in.

Originally Posted by jfman

The problem is your prediction is binary and you've relentlessly branded the notion of linear channels remaining as absurd. Whether as a minimalist DTT service, PSB or otherwise, or a series of channels to showcase the best pay-tv content available on Sky or anywhere else.

Not absurd, but I think it is unlikely. Go into the streamers nowadays and you will find trailers playing in the background. Why do you need to select channels in order to do this?

While it is possible for channels and streamers to co-exist, by now even you must be asking yourself why this would be necessary, and you refuse to contemplate that we may be losing the capacity to use the bandwidth anyway!

I guess 5G broadcasts are possible, but there appear to be few signs of interest in that option in this country.

Once again, you are fighting this argument tooth and nail as if this is my decision to choose the streaming only path. It’s actually nothing to do with me, guv, I’m just reporting what I see as the likely outcome. No need to get so exercised about it.

Other views are available.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except it wasn’t a discussion, was it? It was trolling, baiting and character assassination. Debating is one thing some forum members find difficult to cope with.

I must say, you lot are pretty good at ridicule. I wonder who will have the last laugh?

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------



This is not really news, Richard. If you stop subscribing to Sky Cinema programmes, you will find that all your recordings from these channels disappear. This has been the case for some time.

It is wrong, I agree. I do believe that you should be able to access all content from on demand on payment of a subscription or on pay per view. But we are in the hands of the content providers until such time that legislators decide to change it.

---------- Post added at 20:30 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------



I must have spent most of my time on here answering your interminable questions on what is linear TV and other similar nonsense and your criticisms of points I’ve never even made. Despite seeing what you are doing, I’ve entered into the spirit of responding for those who are genuinely interested.

Look in the mirror, jfman.

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------



For any one post I put on here with one or more links, I get multiple trolling responses to which I try my best to respond with respect.

The rest is history, and it’s all here! ^

I can assure you, it matters not to me if we don’t exactly meet 2035! This seems to bother you rather than it does me! I simply stated how I think things would look in 20 years’ time (back in 2015).

I think at least a substantial amount, if not all, of my prediction so far is exactly on track. The only thing I didn’t anticipate was the advent of the FAST channels.

I expect to be able to access my own recordings from FTA channels at no further cost indefinitely.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’ve learned to give as good as I get on this Forum.

As for the rest of your post, you really don’t get it, do you? Viewers will not have the choice if the channels are wound up and replaced by on demand only.

No evidence for this.

In the last 10 years, TV audiences have been watching less and less by way of our TV channels and audience growth for the streamers is pretty well the same as for the channels now.

Not an unreasonable observation, I’ve always said it’s the expectation this growth hits 100%.

In another 10 years, the audience for the channels will have diminished to such an extent that to continue supporting them will no longer be worthwhile and there will be the same old content on repeat, watched by people advertisers are not so interested in.

No evidence for this. What is the minimum number of viewers required to sustain a linear channel for someone like Sky, or the BBC, who own the content rights anyway?

Your misconception that linear and streaming are somehow contradictory and mutually exclusive positions for some of the largest companies in the media market to pursue one (and one only) is the inherent flaw in all of your speculative “analysis”.

Not absurd, but I think it is unlikely. Go into the streamers nowadays and you will find trailers playing in the background. Why do you need to select channels in order to do this?

Nobody who doesn’t already subscribe to an app is going to enter that app to see trailers for content they don’t subscribe to on a voluntary basis. How do you package this for non-subscribers to upsell? What are they getting in return?

While it is possible for channels and streamers to co-exist, by now even you must be asking yourself why this would be necessary, and you refuse to contemplate that we may be losing the capacity to use the bandwidth anyway!

Are we losing that bandwidth by 2035?

I guess 5G broadcasts are possible, but there appear to be few signs of interest in that option in this country.

Once again, you are fighting this argument tooth and nail as if this is my decision to choose the streaming only path. It’s actually nothing to do with me, guv, I’m just reporting what I see as the likely outcome. No need to get so exercised about it.

Other views are available.

I’m not exercised about anything - I’m very happy that everyone gets to enjoy a range of products in a diverse pay-tv ecosystem.

It’s your visceral response to anyone who comprehend any alternative, based on what rational consumers in the marketplace will continue to watch and rational profit seeking companies may provide, that prolongs these threads.

Your Netflix Nostradamus shtick provides light entertainment as each prediction unravels. No adverts on streamers. Blowing Sky out the water for Premiership rights.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I expect to be able to access my own recordings from FTA channels at no further cost indefinitely.

Until you can’t.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Until you can’t.

Exactly. The all new singing & dancing streaming future is great news for broadcasters, but not for consumers.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Exactly. The all new singing & dancing streaming future is great news for broadcasters, but not for consumers.

I'm not sure it's good for broadcasters. Rupert Murdoch knew the golden era was coming to an end which is why he sold Sky (to Comcast) and most of Fox (to Disney).

The beneficiaries of the current situation to date have been on the production side (studios like Elstree and Shepperton and beyond, writers, actors, producers, directors etc).

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not sure it's good for broadcasters. Rupert Murdoch knew the golden era was coming to an end which is why he sold Sky (to Comcast) and most of Fox (to Disney).

The beneficiaries of the current situation to date have been on the production side (studios like Elstree and Shepperton and beyond, writers, actors, producers, directors etc).

It’s ultimately good for rights holders, they get to extract money from consumers for content every time on their streaming service.

In the dystopian streaming future where you are unable to record and retain even a few hours of your favourite content not only will you have to subscribe to be able to retain the ability to view such content you might even have to follow it around as it moves from one fledgling streamer to another. All the while unable to skip any ads or trailers said provider mandates to be included.

Gone are the days when you could rely on the economies of scale of a single pay-tv platforms to provide the broadest range of content from TV and movie studios with an extensive back catalogue.

Given the precarious financial situation of many of the “streamers” they’ll be eager to exploit more ways of monetising end users now that growth has stalled.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not sure it's good for broadcasters. Rupert Murdoch knew the golden era was coming to an end which is why he sold Sky (to Comcast) and most of Fox (to Disney).

The beneficiaries of the current situation to date have been on the production side (studios like Elstree and Shepperton and beyond, writers, actors, producers, directors etc).

It does beg the question as to why the channels are encouraging people to use the streamers by ensuring that all episodes of a new series can be seen before the whole series has been shown on the TV channels. They are all at it, with ITV even withholding new originals from their main channel, until a certain amount of time has passed when it has been exclusive to ITVX.

There is a definite push towards streaming, and those who doubt what I’ve been saying about where all this is leading need to address the alternative reason for this blatant encouragement, because it certainly eludes me.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It does beg the question as to why the channels are encouraging people to use the streamers by ensuring that all episodes of a new series can be seen before the whole series has been shown on the TV channels. They are all at it, with ITV even withholding new originals from their main channel, until a certain amount of time has passed when it has been exclusive to ITVX.

There is a definite push towards streaming, and those who doubt what I’ve been saying about where all this is leading need to address the alternative reason for this blatant encouragement, because it certainly eludes me.

It’s funny how the answer is on the tip of your tongue but you can’t bring yourself to say it. It’s the same thing that will give linear, and broadcast, television a far longer lifespan than you propose. They are responding to consumer demand and able to accommodate both.

Since the advent of the first generation TiVo on the United States broadcasters have been looking for ways to stop consumers skipping adverts. Streaming is the Trojan horse by which it can be delivered.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s funny how the answer is on the tip of your tongue but you can’t bring yourself to say it. It’s the same thing that will give linear, and broadcast, television a far longer lifespan than you propose. They are responding to consumer demand and able to accommodate both.

I really don’t understand your attitude to the takeover of the streamers. Your characterisation of what I think is far from the truth. Viewers are being encouraged to move to the streamers rather than relying on the ‘linear’ channels, as you are now happy to call them. (Took a while, but we got there in the end).

The streamers are doing rather well, all things considered and are now looking for more ways to attract subscribers. The free or low-cost advertising options offered will go along way to increasing the yield from subscribers, although yes, they will be non—skippable commercials. This will ensure that advertisers know that by advertising on the streamers, the audience will have to watch them (unless viewers use the time to go to the loo or make a cuppa!). Quite an advantage over ‘linear’ (I’m still getting used to using that word - much less convoluted than referring to ‘conventional broadcast TV channels’!).

Welcome to 2024!

https://hardmanandco.com/streamed-content-takes-over/

It’s mildly entertaining how you now push non-skippable adverts as an ‘advantage’ for streamers as if you always were the sage who knew it would be thus, whereas in fact when this whole sorry saga began, you swore blind it would never happen, pointed to the boss (at the time) of Netflix saying it’d never happen, and jeered at those of us who said no business ever says never, and professed you were shocked - shocked - that anyone could ever consider such a thing.

… and also how you still don’t understand why we’re not minded to rate you as much of a futurologist.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I really don’t understand your attitude to the takeover of the streamers. Your characterisation of what I think is far from the truth. Viewers are being encouraged to move to the streamers rather than relying on the ‘linear’ channels, as you are now happy to call them. (Took a while, but we got there in the end).

I’m unclear how I’ve used the term “linear” in the last post is any different from how I have before, but if you could outline the difference that may be helpful for everyone else trying to understand what you mean by your inconsistent use of the term.

I’ve nothing against streaming television as I’ve explained before - I currently subscribe to four (five if you count Prime, although it’s not my reason for subscribing) targeted at 4 different countries.

My main contention is your flawed observations on the market as a whole which is very much distinct from the personal preferences of me, Chris, Hugh, Andrew or anyone else you have in mind when you vent your spleen in the direction of forum members.

The streamers are doing rather well, all things considered and are now looking for more ways to attract subscribers. The free or low-cost advertising options offered will go along way to increasing the yield from subscribers, although yes, they will be non—skippable commercials. This will ensure that advertisers know that by advertising on the streamers, the audience will have to watch them (unless viewers use the time to go to the loo or make a cuppa!). Quite an advantage over ‘linear’ (I’m still getting used to using that word - much less convoluted than referring to ‘conventional broadcast TV channels’!).

Interesting that you view restrictions to mandate viewing adverts as a “benefit” in our previously low cost, no advert streaming future.

Welcome to 2024!

https://hardmanandco.com/streamed-content-takes-over/

If that article represents a positive vision of the streaming future - gaming and gambling - I’m more reassured than ever that a significant enough proportion of the population will continue to reject it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

No evidence for this.

I said ‘if’. In any case, how can I possibly prove to you what has not yet happened? I can’t link to the future, and even if I could, you’d find some obscure or silly reason to rubbish it. May I remind you that we are talking about a prediction relating to future developments here. It’s already half way to coming a reality and we’ve not even reached 50% of the way through the period yet.

Originally Posted by jfman

Not an unreasonable observation, I’ve always said it’s the expectation this growth hits 100%.

You are clearly not grasping this argument. You seem to think that the TV channels will continue right up until the last person has stopped watching them. This is a curious and unrealistic stance for you to take. Firstly, there would come a tipping point when it was no longer worth the time and money to spend on ‘linear’ channels, and secondly, the transmitters and satellite transponders are unlikely to continue to be available by 2035. I cannot see any reason for the ‘linear’ channels continuing via IPTV due to diminishing content and the better choice that on demand viewing offers. In the end, it’s the broadcasters’ decision, not the audience’s, and that decision will be forced by diminishing advertising revenues.

Originally Posted by jfman

No evidence for this. What is the minimum number of viewers required to sustain a linear channel for someone like Sky, or the BBC, who own the content rights anyway?

Your misconception that linear and streaming are somehow contradictory and mutually exclusive positions for some of the largest companies in the media market to pursue one (and one only) is the inherent flaw in all of your speculative “analysis”.

My dear chap, I cannot evidence the future as you request, and you can’t prove your view that ‘linear’ channels and streaming will continue to exist side by side.

In my view, the change to streaming only will come when the existing contracts for the use of transmitters and transponders ends. Your insistence that broadcasters would use two different methods of content provision when one would do, is bonkers. Successful businesses survive by keeping costs low and maximising income.

Originally Posted by jfman

Nobody who doesn’t already subscribe to an app is going to enter that app to see trailers for content they don’t subscribe to on a voluntary basis. How do you package this for non-subscribers to upsell? What are they getting in return?

Ever heard of advertising and reviews? Come on, jfman, use your imagination.

Originally Posted by jfman

Are we losing that bandwidth by 2035?

Yes, by the looks of it (as explained previously).

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not exercised about anything - I’m very happy that everyone gets to enjoy a range of products in a diverse pay-tv ecosystem.

It’s your visceral response to anyone who comprehend any alternative, based on what rational consumers in the marketplace will continue to watch and rational profit seeking companies may provide, that prolongs these threads.

Your Netflix Nostradamus shtick provides light entertainment as each prediction unravels. No adverts on streamers. Blowing Sky out the water for Premiership rights.

You could have fooled me! Your responses to any suggestion that your precious TV channels will be lost convey just a little hysteria.

I have considered the alternative of which you speak, but I’ve ruled it out for all the reasons I've given.

None of my predictions have ‘unravelled’ although FAST channels are now in the mix, and I acknowledge that these will continue. The streamers continue to provide ‘no ads’ options and it was the Netflix CEO who said there would never be any advertisements on Netflix.

As for the Premier League, the point I have been making is that the global streamers could blow Sky out of the water if they wished to, because simply they have more resources, and that is undeniable. They have not yet chosen to do so, but sports streaming is becoming more prevalent now, as I am sure you will acknowledge.