The future of television

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is in the context of the length of time the rollout has been continuing.

---------- Post added at 23:39 ---------- Previous post was at 23:36 ----------



Maybe so, Hugh, but can you actually dispute these results?

Can I dispute the results from a AI chatbot built on top of a LLM that has been shown to be inaccurate/make things up nearly two-thirds of the time?

Yes, I can…

^This little exchange here pretty much sums up the real problem in this discussion.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Can I dispute the results from a AI chatbot built on top of a LLM that has been shown to be inaccurate/make things up nearly two-thirds of the time?

Yes, I can…

You old cynic! What could possibly go wrong with such a set up?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is in the context of the length of time the rollout has been continuing.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you, just keep living in that made up world of yours.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There aren’t any results of note to dispute, OB.

In the absence of actual figures for much of it and how these costs are spread between all of the broadcasters who share the DTT system, and how much of there costs exclusively apply to broadcasting on DTT (as opposed to being broadcast on satellite, cable or streaming platforms) it’s all very “how long is a piece of string?”.

More like another example of deflection, jfman.

---------- Post added at 23:42 ---------- Previous post was at 23:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

^This little exchange here pretty much sums up the real problem in this discussion.

Well, all I get from you guys is constant questioning the source of links rather than any attempt to answer the points made. It’s a classic response from people with no answers.

It’s pretty pointless trying to have a discussion with people who just want to belittle, disrupt and troll because they are receiving views that conflict with their own. It’s a shame, because this could be a really good forum if all views were entertained, but there you go.

[jfman]

Chat GPT isn't a source when it doesn't even provide figures, let alone substantiate them.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, all I get from you guys is constant questioning the source of links rather than any attempt to answer the points made. It’s a classic response from people with no answers. .

On the contrary, we took Ofcom at face value this week. The problem is that *you* weren’t interested in Ofcom’s list of potential answers. You just keep reciting their summary of the problem as if that somehow proves your point.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

More like another example of deflection, jfman.

---------- Post added at 23:42 ---------- Previous post was at 23:35 ----------



Well, all I get from you guys is constant questioning the source of links rather than any attempt to answer the points made. It’s a classic response from people with no answers.

It’s pretty pointless trying to have a discussion with people who just want to belittle, disrupt and troll because they are receiving views that conflict with their own. It’s a shame, because this could be a really good forum if all views were entertained, but there you go.

I ran that statement through ChatGPT, and it’s reply* was

Sounds like someone is very unhappy when people don’t agree with him, and doesn’t understand that the whole point of forums like this are to encourage reasoned debate, and whilst all views should be entertained, those views can be challenged by others if they are believed not to be based on a wide range of available evidence - reviewing all of the posts by this person through my LLM, I have high confidence these were posted by one of my very early development models, OldBoyGPT…

*not really

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Chat GPT isn't a source when it doesn't even provide figures, let alone substantiate them.

You still haven’t come up with any facts to dispute that information. You use the same tactic with all the links posted that you don’t like unless the message is in line with your own argument - again, without engaging on the points made.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

On the contrary, we took Ofcom at face value this week. The problem is that *you* weren’t interested in Ofcom’s list of potential answers. You just keep reciting their summary of the problem as if that somehow proves your point.

I did consider Ofcom’s responses, but they did not appear to me to be relevant to what the TV industry wants.

You will be saying the same a day before DTT switch-off, just to be annoying.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

I ran that statement through ChatGPT, and it’s reply* was



*not really

Except there is no reasoned debate on here, that was my point.

[jfman]

Nobody needs a fact to dispute that costs are “significant” since the term is entirely subjective. Relative to what?

You only need to open your eyes to see that rational capitalists use DTT to a greater extent than they are mandated to. They could simply not renew their licences - and I’d welcome that if they wanted to come 2035. So why the urge to crash the system too? If someone else wanted to use it, that’s the free market, inniit?

That’s like your local Tesco closing down and torching it so Asda can’t use it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I did consider Ofcom’s responses, but they did not appear to me to be relevant to what the TV industry wants.

You do know that the line "we've had enough of experts" was there to win over the hard of thinking.

It's not anyone's strategy and Ofcom' solutions can't be discarded because they don't fit your philosophy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except there is no reasoned debate on here, that was my point.

Exactly - there is your view, and everyone else is wrong if they dont share it ...

[jfman]

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...et-access.html

Ofcom find 5% of the UK population don’t have internet at home. Whole countries have television markets smaller than this.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...et-access.html

Ofcom find 5% of the UK population don’t have internet at home. Whole countries have television markets smaller than this.

So what? Public broadcasters have failed to support retaining a terrestrial TV service, and other commercial broadcasters such as Sky will not waste time with it either.

Some of the much smaller channels may wish to continue broadcasting, but they won’t capture much interest, and the cost of the infrastructure will mean the current system will be rendered unviable.

As I have said repeatedly, in the end, if the TV industry decides to go IPTV only, then IPTV it will be. Internet refuseniks will then have to reassess their view on this.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So what? Public broadcasters have failed to support retaining a terrestrial TV service, and other commercial broadcasters such as Sky will not waste time with it either.

Have they? According to every list I see there’s plenty of channels on DTT and satellite on a discretionary basis that could be withdrawn tomorrow if rational capitalists in the marketplace chose to do so.

I have every confidence rational capitalists will continue to do so far beyond 2035.

Some of the much smaller channels may wish to continue broadcasting, but they won’t capture much interest, and the cost of the infrastructure will mean the current system will be rendered unviable.

As I have said repeatedly, in the end, if the TV industry decides to go IPTV only, then IPTV it will be. Internet refuseniks will then have to reassess their view on this.

Starmer’s government is unpopular enough without telling millions of people they need to pony up for internet services they don’t want or need to watch television.