You are here: Home | Forum | Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
I’m not quite sure that it did to be honest. 13 million homes are on the cable network, and the most commercially viable deployments of FTTP will be in urban areas. So even if Openreach deployed to fifteen million premises (subject to the right investment conditions), it’s highly likely there will be huge overlap, and it’ll be in areas that already benefit from decent FTTC.
Over 30mbs is classed as fast but ideally over 70mbs.
Two companies are already offering 1gbs down 1gbs up though not widely available yet hyperoptic and gigaclear, also VM announced recently they are going to roll out 1gbs speeds but their downside is the upload speed is trash compared to others.
The BBC planning for something and actually doing something is two separate things. You continue to clutch at that one ignoring ITV, Channel 4, Sky (those that rely on viewers/subscribers and not the tv tax) have announced no such plans.
Also the whole country won’t have adequate broadband in “a few years” - even the ISPs themselves have wrote to the PM outlining the massive task it’d be to achieve this by 2025, let alone 2033.
All the while linear television, terrestrial and satellite, continues to beam glorious high definition pictures universally and people continue to watch despite having the option of on demand options.
So how do you explain the fact that commercial TV stations are being consulted on increasing their advertising time to make up for their depleted advertising income that has arisen from the increased viewing of OTT services?
This increase in commercials will only lead viewers to abandon commercial TV stations in greater numbers, and so the spiral of increasing decay gets tighter.
All the big commercial companies will want more ads to increase their revenue, on the basis another minute of ads on ITV will squeeze the channels with lower ratings. It's perfectly rational and doesn't change my analysis.
All the big commercial companies will want more ads to increase their revenue, on the basis another minute of ads on ITV will squeeze the channels with lower ratings. It's perfectly rational and doesn't change my analysis.
Yes, I appreciate that, but the reason for the Ofcom consultation and the change recommended is the reduced revenue due to OTT competition. Which, of course, is the beginning of the process I have been describing.
Broadly I don't disagree with the principles of many of the points you've made. It's the final destination (no linear TV at all) and timescales I disagree over.
There are plenty of linear channels with a far smaller budget than ITV or Channel 4.
It's the smaller ones that will fail, in my opinion and as said before, especially the sat/cable channels. Ultimately, things may go full circle and the main broadcast channels could reign supreme as the choice becomes watching tv on a handful of channels or using the streamers.
That said, after watching the CBS Viacom merger presentation last week, that companies' management seem intent on having as many channels as they can along with as many streamers too. I think this is flawed and will fail, but they seem confident in their approach and the bulk of it will be ad funded.
The most lucrative returns from commercials come when younger adults watch them in droves. This is what brings in the readies for the TV channels.It seems that the millenials are veering away from the footie and do not watch the traditionally broadcast tv channels habitually, preferring to stream YouTube and Netflix. So the advertising that produces the best results will dry up, thus reducing advertising income still further.
It's all very well to claim that older people will continue to prefer the TV channels they are used to watching, but commercials aimed at them just don't really hit the spot. Advertisers won't want to pay a fortune to attract pensioners. This is why we will soon see a rapid decline of scheduled TV channels. What is to prevent it?
The most lucrative returns from commercials come when younger adults watch them in droves. This is what brings in the readies for the TV channels.It seems that the millenials are veering away from the footie and do not watch the traditionally broadcast tv channels habitually, preferring to stream YouTube and Netflix. So the advertising that produces the best results will dry up, thus reducing advertising income still further.
It's all very well to claim that older people will continue to prefer the TV channels they are used to watching, but commercials aimed at them just don't really hit the spot. Advertisers won't want to pay a fortune to attract pensioners. This is why we will soon see a rapid decline of scheduled TV channels. What is to prevent it?
A lot of your points are covered in the video I posted and how smoe TV channels will survive. I know it is about the situation in the US but it will be replicated over here.
The media companies trying to prevent their loss of revenues, but I don't disagree Old Boy.
By the way, lots of articles on Digital Tv Europe at the moment on their front page which are relevant for this thread (look in the centre column for them):
The most lucrative returns from commercials come when younger adults watch them in droves. This is what brings in the readies for the TV channels.It seems that the millenials are veering away from the footie and do not watch the traditionally broadcast tv channels habitually, preferring to stream YouTube and Netflix. So the advertising that produces the best results will dry up, thus reducing advertising income still further.
It's all very well to claim that older people will continue to prefer the TV channels they are used to watching, but commercials aimed at them just don't really hit the spot. Advertisers won't want to pay a fortune to attract pensioners. This is why we will soon see a rapid decline of scheduled TV channels. What is to prevent it?
Most young people I know haven't got a lot of spare income to spend - it is older people who have more disposable income so maybe adverts should be aimed st them - especially as according to up you youngsters do not watch broadcast to channels.
Join CF
You are here: 
