The future of television

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So linear channels in all but name will exist.

If you want to put it that way, yes, but my prediction relates to existing channels. I’ve explained this before, but just to remind you:

Channels like BBC1, BBC 2, etc will disappear and instead content will be categorised by genre. Davie has said so. All the content will be under the corporate BBC brand.

Similarly all Sky channels will be under a general Sky banner (there may be a further division for Sky Sports).

I have never made an assumption that live programming won’t be available - that is just a twist that others have made. How would that ever make sense? Live programming will, of course, continue to exist and will be accessed in much the same way as existing PPV programming.

Originally Posted by jfman

Do you even know what the Government targets are for broadband rollout, OB?

Yes. The nationwide gigabit-broadband rollout should be completed by 2025 under the government’s manifesto (recognise that date?). That target was revised to a minimum of 85% of premises by 2025. The Levelling Up White Paper published earlier this year published a new target - at least 99% by 2030.

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s an important distinction OB that your belief has an ever increasing number of caveats while the rest of us are comfortable in our own analysis as we have been throughout. Too many dependencies - public and private sector investment, regulatory intervention and consumer behaviour are required to hit a target we believe is wholly unrealistic.

I based my prediction on the ‘knowns’ at the time. It doesn’t require a genius to understand that if the ‘knowns’ become uncertain and then change, this will impact on the original prediction.

Nobody can predict the future with the kind of precision you seem to expect. Everything depends on the circumstances that make that prediction possible remaining appreciably the same.

Whatever happens now, I am quite pleased that we are well on the way to getting to where I said we would be, even if it takes slightly longer to get there through policy changes.

So, like we have said all along, linear channels will still exist, alongside other methods of delivery.

It's good to know that you are willing to change your mind from what you posted in August 2017...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...s#post35913670

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

None of these, sadly.

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:50 ----------


Er, when did I say that linear TV (from which I take it we are referring to the traditional broadcast channels) are dying? And what has that to do with my post about Amazon not appearing on the V6? You keep saying that there are many ways to access Amazon, and of course you are correct in saying that. In fact I have three ways of accessing it right now. However, none of these methods allow me to bookmark Amazon content in 'My Shows' on the V6. That, and that alone, is my point.

There is no contradiction in my message, Den, but you do seem to be confusing completely what I have said.

Just for the record, I have said that the future of TV is on demand/streaming services, which is supported by many people in the industry. For now, the conventional channels are thriving, but this will not last. My view that linear channels will die off is based on what I believe will have happened by about 2036. So not to worry, we're not there yet and you can rest easy!

Glad we are all in agreement.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Glad we are all in agreement.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, like we have said all along, linear channels will still exist, alongside other methods of delivery.

Glad we are all in agreement.

That doubt I have never had myself. It’s a wild assumption or leg-pulling by others that this is what I have argued. I’ve been trying to explain my position on this for years, but I’m glad it’s got through at last.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That doubt I have never had myself. It’s a wild assumption or leg-pulling by others that this is what I have argued. I’ve been trying to explain my position on this for years, but I’m glad it’s got through at last.

<>cough cough>

My view that linear channels will die off is based on what I believe will have happened by about 2036.

<cough cough>

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If you want to put it that way, yes, but my prediction relates to existing channels. I’ve explained this before, but just to remind you:

Channels like BBC1, BBC 2, etc will disappear and instead content will be categorised by genre. Davie has said so. All the content will be under the corporate BBC brand.

Similarly all Sky channels will be under a general Sky banner (there may be a further division for Sky Sports).

I have never made an assumption that live programming won’t be available - that is just a twist that others have made. How would that ever make sense? Live programming will, of course, continue to exist and will be accessed in much the same way as existing PPV programming.

Your own contortions are the only “twist” here. Live sport doesn’t have to be broadcast on a linear channel at all, it can be a pop up stream within an app.

However what a linear channel offers is convenience. That’s why people consistently use them.

Yes. The nationwide gigabit-broadband rollout should be completed by 2025 under the government’s manifesto (recognise that date?). That target was revised to a minimum of 85% of premises by 2025. The Levelling Up White Paper published earlier this year published a new target - at least 99% by 2030.

Can you provide a link for the 99% claim? I have had a look and can only find “nationwide”. Forgive me for being pedantic but that doesn’t mean every premise, or even 99% of them. A percentage in every local authority, every constituency, etc. could meet the qualification while being below 99%.

Given the squeezes on the commercial sector with borrowing getting more expensive, and squeeze on public finances for those who buy into that, where is the investment going to come from? It’s not unreasonable to be sceptical given the scale of the task.

Add into that the take up of such services among an ever squeezed public at large.

I based my prediction on the ‘knowns’ at the time. It doesn’t require a genius to understand that if the ‘knowns’ become uncertain and then change, this will impact on the original prediction.

An entirely speculative post cannot be based upon “knowns”.

Nobody can predict the future with the kind of precision you seem to expect. Everything depends on the circumstances that make that prediction possible remaining appreciably the same.

Whatever happens now, I am quite pleased that we are well on the way to getting to where I said we would be, even if it takes slightly longer to get there through policy changes.

Some time after 2035 and a considerable time beyond 2025 , claiming linear over the internet as a win is quite a stretch, OB. I say that as an avid follower of your claims for 8 years now. (If of course even that happens).

So, I’ve just had a little down time over breakfast to read Tim Davie’s speech in full. There is literally nothing in it at all that supports OB’s fanciful futurology.

Davie doesn’t even predict that the BBC will be IP only by 2030, nor that it wants to be. The date is a shorthand for ‘the next decade’. A fairly standard oratorical device. If the context wasn’t sufficient to demonstrate that, then there’s also the fact, already noted above, that the UK’s broadband landscape in 2030 is highly unlikely to support it. The BBC will go IP only at some point but no date is predicted. Makes you wonder what OB thinks he knows that the BBC Director General doesn’t.

Tim Davie predicts fewer linear channels for the BBC but not an end to them. In fact the persistence of some linear channels is an active part of the plan, not a compromise forced by technological limitations.

The BBC is not planning for a paywalled, subscription-only future, and nor is it warning especially loudly about that possibility. Davie makes the case for universality in his speech but it’s pretty obvious he thinks the benefits of universality are obvious enough that there’s no serious risk of the BBC losing it in the next charter settlement.

Lest we forget, OB’s original prediction was that the UK’s fairly imminent TV future was going to be entirely on the Netflix model, namely video on demand via the internet. That is absolutely not the future that the BBC is planning for. The BBC sees a need to continue providing linear schedules, even while moving its distribution method to IP - and that can’t occur as soon as the next 10 years, surprise surprise, for many of the reasons the rest of us laid out when this whole discussion started, something like 7 years and goodness knows how many threads ago.

Game, set and match. Thank you and goodnight.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, like we have said all along, linear channels will still exist, alongside other methods of delivery.

It's good to know that you are willing to change your mind from what you posted in August 2017...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...s#post35913670




Glad we are all in agreement.

Another silly misinterpretation. You, I think, are now referring to FAST channels, not the channels in our existing EPGs. I maintain that if we do go IP only, there will be no need to have these separate channels and that all content will be grouped under the name of the provider and they will be on demand (with live events streamed).

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Your own contortions are the only “twist” here. Live sport doesn’t have to be broadcast on a linear channel at all, it can be a pop up stream within an app.

However what a linear channel offers is convenience. That’s why people consistently use them.

You are the one contorting. I agree that sport can be a pop-up stream within an app. I’m not sure why you thought I was saying it wasn’t the case.

Originally Posted by jfman

Can you provide a link for the 99% claim? I have had a look and can only find “nationwide”. Forgive me for being pedantic but that doesn’t mean every premise, or even 99% of them. A percentage in every local authority, every constituency, etc. could meet the qualification while being below 99%.

Given the squeezes on the commercial sector with borrowing getting more expensive, and squeeze on public finances for those who buy into that, where is the investment going to come from? It’s not unreasonable to be sceptical given the scale of the task.

Add into that the take up of such services among an ever squeezed public at large.

For someone who claims I am pulling everything out of thin air and not doing my research, that is an extraordinary claim.

I will humour you this time.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-8392/

Read and inwardly digest.

Government targets
The Government’s manifesto commitment was to deliver nationwide gigabit-broadband by 2025. That target was revised in November 2020 to a minimum of 85% of premises by 2025.

The Levelling Up White Paper published in February 2022 set a new target: for gigabit-broadband to be available nationwide by 2030. Nationwide coverage means “at least 99%” of premises.

The Government says it remains committed to meet 85% of premises by 2025. The ‘nationwide-by-2030’ target therefore puts a timeline for connecting the remaining 15% of premises, which will mostly require public funding support.

The 2030 target is considered more realistic by industry stakeholders but the delay from 2025 has been described as a “blow to rural communities”. The Government says the revised targets reflect how quickly industry could build in hard to reach areas requiring public funding alongside their commercial roll-out.

The Public Accounts Committee said in January 2022 that it was “not convinced” that the Government was on track to meet its targets and that its approach to gigabit-broadband roll-out “risks perpetuating digital inequality across the UK”.

Originally Posted by jfman

An entirely speculative post cannot be based upon “knowns”.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Some time after 2035 and a considerable time beyond 2025 , claiming linear over the internet as a win is quite a stretch, OB. I say that as an avid follower of your claims for 8 years now. (If of course even that happens).

Stop playing games. The date I am committed to is 2035, based on the facts not changing. If I am one or two years adrift, fine - who cares? The thrust of my argument would have been correct.

More correct than all those siren voices who have been telling me over the years that it would never happen at all.

---------- Post added at 10:06 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

<>cough cough>



<cough cough>

Have you got Covid, Hugh? Stay indoors, keep warm, there’s a good chap.

For clarification about FAST (Free ad-supported streaming TV) channels...

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2022/11...vertisers-care

Free ad-supported streaming TV (Fast) channels are, as the name suggests, free and funded by ads, and they now populate internet-connected TVs in their thousands. To viewers, they’re almost indistinguishable from linear channels of old, but instead of being broadcast, all of their content is streamed. To broadcasters, they’re inexpensive, flexible and easy enough to stock with library content.

Richard Young, who is director of syndication at Little Dot Studios, is responsible for running the company’s seven Fast channels (Real Stories, Timeline, Wonder, Real Crime, Real Wild, Real Life and Don’t Tell the Bride). “What we’ve forgotten in the move to AVOD and SVOD is that people actually quite like channels and that is happening across all demographic groups,” he says.

The issue of discoverability on SVOD is a known risk to advertisers. A survey by Now (formerly Now TV) found that nearly half of viewers have at some point decided not to view TV after failing to find something to watch. “People like the experience where they don’t have to search for content, where someone is programming it for them and they can lean back and be entertained,” says Young.

https://www.muvi.com/blogs/fast-channel.html

What is the future of FAST channels?
The FAST market is booming and in the last 3 years, it has given birth to 20 FAST service providers in the US with a span of over 1000 channels. The future of FAST is bright because it is providing a massive opportunity for media distributors to explore new revenue streams and reach a new base of audience digitally.

The universal spread of on-demand services in past years has led to – choice fatigue in consumers. Therefore, nowadays they are searching for a lean-back, passive viewing experience. Consumers are also preferring to choose an ad-supported format to eliminate subscription charges.

With abundant internet connectivity, connected TV devices are dominating the market. Content providers can use this opportunity to align with the evolving consumption habits and convey an unparalleled scale of video content over IP.


Conclusion
FAST is rapidly gaining traction and becoming a popular consumption format for several users globally. It can be a revenue game-changer for content distributors or media companies that are ready to act immediately. If media owners don’t aim to capture maximum eyeballs, then they are at the risk of missing out on the emerging opportunity of exploring new revenue streams.

So this new, fast growing market won't exist in 12 years, according to OB...

You, I think, are now referring to FAST channels, not the channels in our existing EPGs. I maintain that if we do go IP only, there will be no need to have these separate channels

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

For clarification about FAST (Free ad-supported streaming TV) channels...

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2022/11...vertisers-care





https://www.muvi.com/blogs/fast-channel.html



So this new, fast growing market won't exist in 12 years, according to OB...

As you know, I was not referring to FAST channels in my original posts. These are are relatively new phenomenon and to be honest, I don’t think they will stay the course once on demand becomes a more natural means of watching TV.

They may survive, but I don’t see them attracting anywhere near the number of viewers as the channels on our EPGs get, and the lesser viewed ones are barely keeping going, aren’t they?

The FAST channels are cheap to run and presumably, therefore, they won’t need so many viewers to keep them financially viable, but we’ll see.

That’s the point most of have been making for the last seven years - things change, so making dogmatic predictions that things will come about by a certain date is "brave*" and "courageous*".

And, tbf, some of your recent predictions proved to be not congruent with actuality…


*as in "Yes, Minister"

[jfman]

Scheduled linear television over the internet is a new phenomenon???

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As you know, I was not referring to FAST channels in my original posts. These are are relatively new phenomenon and to be honest, I don’t think they will stay the course once on demand becomes a more natural means of watching TV.

They may survive, but I don’t see them attracting anywhere near the number of viewers as the channels on our EPGs get, and the lesser viewed ones are barely keeping going, aren’t they?

The FAST channels are cheap to run and presumably, therefore, they won’t need so many viewers to keep them financially viable, but we’ll see.

FAST channels are made possible by exactly the same technology that supports VOD. They are delivered over IP and are available on exactly the same TVs that support Netflix etc. People are generally getting easy access to them at the same time as they’re getting easy access to Netflix, via integrated apps and fast home internet connections.

People who are choosing to watch them are choosing them even though the streaming apps are right there and just as accessible.

The companies delivering them have now formally identified, by research, the problem several of us pointed out to you years ago, and have given it a name: ‘discoverability’. Forcing people to search and make playlists leads to *less* TV viewing, not more. Lots of people *want* to come home from work and enjoy a programme that has been curated for them.

And yet you *still* think on demand is going to become ‘more natural’ at some point.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Can someone please define "linear channel"

Originally Posted by Paul

Can someone please define "linear channel"

Content/programmes watched at a set time and on a set TV channel.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionar...vision-channel

Linear Television Channel means a channel, network or programming service that Broadcasts Audiovisual Content in a manner that is linear-streamed, programmed and transmitted to viewers in a continuous and sequential manner, scheduled by the channel, network or programming service (and not by the viewer) during a significant majority of each consecutive twenty-four hour period.

Or…

From a previous post/thread

Originally Posted by Hugh

Linear means what Old Boy wants it to mean at the time - Schrödinger‘s linear (the outcome will depend on the observer)...