VOD : Streaming services news, offers and general chit chat

[TimeLord2018]

While It might mean the end of Freeview probably not Linear TV just yet.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://rxtvinfo.com/2023/bbc-told-t...lacement-plan/

I would have thought DTV Services Ltd (who own Freeview and Freesat) would be the most appropriate body to do this and not the BBC.

I definitely think this is a missing service, as both TV Sky and VM offer linear streaming devices. It would also make it easier for VM and Sky customers without an aerial to cut the cord.

[OLD BOY]

I must admit to being puzzled by this. Surely, if the powers that be want Freeview to continue, they could simply transfer it all over to the internet.

Other streamers such as the BBC I-Player and NOW already have their scheduled TV channels on their internet service, so why is there an issue with bringing them all together on a streaming version of Freeview? Is there something I’m missing here?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I must admit to being puzzled by this. Surely, if the powers that be want Freeview to continue, they could simply transfer it all over to the internet.

Other streamers such as the BBC I-Player and NOW already have their scheduled TV channels on their internet service, so why is there an issue with bringing them all together on a streaming version of Freeview? Is there something I’m missing here?

Maybe the broadcasters prefer to promote their own apps with potential for subscriptions and gaining a direct relationships with viewers over a general free service.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I must admit to being puzzled by this. Surely, if the powers that be want Freeview to continue, they could simply transfer it all over to the internet.

Other streamers such as the BBC I-Player and NOW already have their scheduled TV channels on their internet service, so why is there an issue with bringing them all together on a streaming version of Freeview? Is there something I’m missing here?

The loss of millions of viewers for a start.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I must admit to being puzzled by this. Surely, if the powers that be want Freeview to continue, they could simply transfer it all over to the internet.

Other streamers such as the BBC I-Player and NOW already have their scheduled TV channels on their internet service, so why is there an issue with bringing them all together on a streaming version of Freeview? Is there something I’m missing here?

And for an encore, Old Boy solves world hunger by telling governments all they have to do is grow more food and ship it around the world.

As per, you seem to think that describing your desired output is basically the same as solving all the technical challenges required to achieve it. In the real world, streaming is proprietary technology, there are therefore significant costs to entry for smaller operators and at present there is no system that would facilitate seamless transition from the present system of using channel numbers to access broadcast transmissions. In other words, while the building blocks may be there, someone has got to spend a lot of time and money assembling them into an IP version of Freeview before such a transition could be made.

We’ve been in a new house for almost a year now and have had so much else to do, we’ve yet to get round to getting an aerial on the roof. We have FTTP so we do indeed rely on streaming for all our TV. However even with a TV that is only 5 years old, and fibre internet delivering 300Mbps, streaming broadcast channels is still clunky. Select the broadcaster’s app, wait for it to load, navigate away from the default view (which is always what they want to push, and never what’s on now), then navigate from channel to channel to see what’s on.

If you’re lucky you’ll get a now-and-next EPG for the channel you’re actually looking at. There is no EPG for the entire broadcast stream ecosystem. I still have to use the Freesat app on my iPad in order to see what’s on all the channels before opening an app, because navigating channels within an app is quite slow enough - navigating between channels on different apps is torturous.

We are a very long way from replicating Freeview over IP in any way that would make it easy to achieve universal adoption.

But if there are no linear channels, that problem disappears…

(ahoy, circular logic argument on the horizon, Cap’n…)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Maybe the broadcasters prefer to promote their own apps with potential for subscriptions and gaining a direct relationships with viewers over a general free service.

They can do both. A Freeview service could be established over the internet AND people would also have an option to go directly to the streamer via their website.

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The loss of millions of viewers for a start.

So you think people just wouldn’t watch the telly? Seems unlikely.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They can do both. A Freeview service could be established over the internet AND people would also have an option to go directly to the streamer via their website.

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------



So you think people just wouldn’t watch the telly? Seems unlikely.

I thought you already had the choice to pretty much watch all of Freeview online

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

And for an encore, Old Boy solves world hunger by telling governments all they have to do is grow more food and ship it around the world.

As per, you seem to think that describing your desired output is basically the same as solving all the technical challenges required to achieve it. In the real world, streaming is proprietary technology, there are therefore significant costs to entry for smaller operators and at present there is no system that would facilitate seamless transition from the present system of using channel numbers to access broadcast transmissions. In other words, while the building blocks may be there, someone has got to spend a lot of time and money assembling them into an IP version of Freeview before such a transition could be made.

We’ve been in a new house for almost a year now and have had so much else to do, we’ve yet to get round to getting an aerial on the roof. We have FTTP so we do indeed rely on streaming for all our TV. However even with a TV that is only 5 years old, and fibre internet delivering 300Mbps, streaming broadcast channels is still clunky. Select the broadcaster’s app, wait for it to load, navigate away from the default view (which is always what they want to push, and never what’s on now), then navigate from channel to channel to see what’s on.

If you’re lucky you’ll get a now-and-next EPG for the channel you’re actually looking at. There is no EPG for the entire broadcast stream ecosystem. I still have to use the Freesat app on my iPad in order to see what’s on all the channels before opening an app, because navigating channels within an app is quite slow enough - navigating between channels on different apps is torturous.

We are a very long way from replicating Freeview over IP in any way that would make it easy to achieve universal adoption.

You only have to look at those FAST channels to see that it doesn’t have to be that hard. If government wants to promote Freeview via IP then it will fund the project if a private provider cannot be found. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this can work. I have no doubt that this can be done well within 10 years, which takes us to 2033.

Maybe the BBC could take this on for a few. They need the money and the I-Player works quite well.

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I thought you already had the choice to pretty much watch all of Freeview online

I think some on here just want Freeview to look exactly as it does now. All I’m saying is that if that is what is wanted, it can be achieved over IP.

Whether this is what the broadcasters want is a different issue.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So you think people just wouldn’t watch the telly? Seems unlikely.

There’s 28 million households in the UK and broadband penetration is only at 89%. Add on those who can’t get a speed sufficient enough for HDTV, or perhaps only one stream per household. So yes, OB, you’ve just cut off millions of people.

For those who have dated equipment who is to say that they move to Freeview over IP instead of say Sky or Virgin? This means reduced prominence. That means fewer viewers on top of the millions you’ve outright cut off.

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You only have to look at those FAST channels to see that it doesn’t have to be that hard. If government wants to promote Freeview via IP then it will fund the project if a private provider cannot be found.

This Government will be out of office in mere months and I’d be shocked if the next one committed to arbitrarily cutting television off for millions of people and driving up costs in a cost of living crisis!

It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this can work. I have no doubt that this can be done well within 10 years, which takes us to 2033.

Will TV manufacturers commit to these not yet developed standards and proprietary products for the UK market?

Considering analogue switch off took 14 years from digital switch on (which itself, was years of planning) it’s extremely difficult to see how your proposal can be driven in ten.

Maybe the BBC could take this on for a few. They need the money and the I-Player works quite well.

I think some on here just want Freeview to look exactly as it does now. All I’m saying is that if that is what is wanted, it can be achieved over IP.

Whether this is what the broadcasters want is a different issue.

Surely if broadcasters didn’t want Freeview they’d just hand back their licences? Is this going to be industry led or will it require Government intervention as you outline above?

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So you think people just wouldn’t watch the telly? Seems unlikely.

Well, people can just decide there's too many hurdles, too many hoops to jump through, the costs might be prohibitive...or they may even be stubborn.

I know from recent personal experience that it can not take much to change viewing habits. My recent life changes have meant I spend less time watching anything, no matter the method of delivery, and life is so good I frankly don't care so much if TV, a previous big part of life, isn't a big part of the equation.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s 28 million households in the UK and broadband penetration is only at 89%. Add on those who can’t get a speed sufficient enough for HDTV, or perhaps only one stream per household. So yes, OB, you’ve just cut off millions of people.

For those who have dated equipment who is to say that they move to Freeview over IP instead of say Sky or Virgin? This means reduced prominence. That means fewer viewers on top of the millions you’ve outright cut off.

That’s funny, because you quoted a different percentage last time. The true figure as at the start of 2023 was 97.8% penetration. Do you really believe that we’ll not have the whole country covered in 10 years?

You are right to point out that some people have TVs that are outdated now. I suspect the government would help them the same way as they did with the digital changeover. I know you like to put obstacles to any change, and I am not saying there aren’t any, but obstacles can be overcome.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Surely if broadcasters didn’t want Freeview they’d just hand back their licences? Is this going to be industry led or will it require Government intervention as you outline above?

I didn’t say broadcasters didn’t want Freeview in some form or another. Faced with a switch off in the early 2030s, maybe any conversion to IP would indeed be industry led. However, if not, I’m pretty certain that the government of the day would put money in to assist or cover development costs.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s funny, because you quoted a different percentage last time. The true figure as at the start of 2023 was 97.8% penetration. Do you really believe that we’ll not have the whole country covered in 10 years?

The higher figure is coverage. The lower figure is the number of households who actually subscribe. And yes, in 10 years time I still think there will be people who don’t subscribe to internet services for whatever reason they please.

You are right to point out that some people have TVs that are outdated now. I suspect the government would help them the same way as they did with the digital changeover. I know you like to put obstacles to any change, and I am not saying there aren’t any, but obstacles can be overcome.

I’m a bloke on the internet. You’ll find the markets put obstacles in place, cold hard self preservation motivated capitalists.

I didn’t say broadcasters didn’t want Freeview in some form or another. Faced with a switch off in the early 2030s, maybe any conversion to IP would indeed be industry led. However, if not, I’m pretty certain that the government of the day would put money in to assist or cover development costs.

There’s no magic money tree, OB. For a cause that’s neither necessary nor desirable. Unless you are proposing the Government gives away free internet to people who just want it for TV? Sounds like communism to me.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

The higher figure is coverage. The lower figure is the number of households who actually subscribe. And yes, in 10 years time I still think there will be people who don’t subscribe to internet services for whatever reason they please.

Maybe so, jfman, but if they want to watch TV, then they will have to when the transmitters are taken over for 5G mobile.

---------- Post added at 14:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:57 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The higher figure is coverage. The lower figure is the number of households who actually subscribe. And yes, in 10 years time I still think there will be people who don’t subscribe to internet services for whatever reason they please.



I’m a bloke on the internet. You’ll find the markets put obstacles in place, cold hard self preservation motivated capitalists.



There’s no magic money tree, OB. For a cause that’s neither necessary nor desirable. Unless you are proposing the Government gives away free internet to people who just want it for TV? Sounds like communism to me.

I find that it’s the government, quangos like Ofcom, protest groups and people on this forum that put obstacles in the way. Business generally finds a way around the problems.

You may be unaware of this, but the government has been considering providing a basic internet service free of charge to at least some of the population. I have no doubt that they will also provide assistance to people who do not have smart TVs. If that happens, and I’m sure it will, the problem of cost to poorer households is resolved.