The future of television

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Certain audiences may struggle with broadband speeds initially, but that will be sorted.

Sorted how ? and when ?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

Sorted how ? and when ?

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Your own words, OB.



I ask again why are you unhappy? What void exists in your life leaving you unfulfilled by the status quo where we’ve never had a more rich and diverse quantity of products in the pay-tv marketplace? (Setting aside the failing business models of “streamers” for a moment).

I assume you’ve missed me pointing out all the streaming services I subscribe to?

The difference is I’m able to disassociate in my mind my preferences as a consumer with the marketplace as a whole.

Guesswork.

Unsure how this is substantively different from the lowest priced triple play offering with a TV360.

As with every TV360 customer.

You’re showing your arse here, OB, by continuing to view both as distinct. Peacock in the USA, Now here, Discovery+ here all stream and offer both linear channels and on demand content over IP. Indeed, so does Virgin Stream!

Often stated, never evidenced.

Yet those that could move to entirely on demand offerings, don’t. You fail to ask yourself why this is.

Where have I said I’m unhappy? Certainly, I dislike having to pay for TV channels when I get most content from streamers, but that is a temporary bugbear.

I am well aware that you also subscribe to streamers, which frankly appears to be a contradiction for you as you moan about them all the time.

I don’t know why it is that you cannot see that if I ditch the TV channels, I will be saving money! I have the Maxit package with Sky Cinema, by the way.

Your arguments sound desperate to me. Why are you telling me that some streamers also carry ‘live’ TV? Do you not realise that most people know that, and what’s it got to do with anything? We are in a transitional period and so of course, like Freely, we are being offered the choice. That will not last, of course, but I understand you cannot get your head around that.

As for your last comment, if TV channels are switched off, that choice will no longer exist. Just ask the ITV CEO!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------


Where have I said I’m unhappy? Certainly, I dislike having to pay for TV channels when I get most content from streamers, but that is a temporary bugbear.

I am well aware that you also subscribe to streamers, which frankly appears to be a contradiction for you as you moan about them all the time.

I don’t know why it is that you cannot see that if I ditch the TV channels, I will be saving money! I have the Maxit package with Sky Cinema, by the way.

Your arguments sound desperate to me. Why are you telling me that some streamers also carry ‘live’ TV? Do you not realise that most people know that, and what’s it got to do with anything? We are in a transitional period and so of course, like Freely, we are being offered the choice. That will not last, of course, but I understand you cannot get your head around that.

As for your last comment, if TV channels are switched off, that choice will no longer exist. Just ask the ITV CEO!

No one (except you as a straw man argument) has ever said that - the difference of opinion is that most people see a blended future (streaming and TV channels), whilst you insist ad infinitum that "there can be only one!…




Also, you seem to be missing out the PSB remit in this "streaming only" future…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

Once we get past your Martin Luther King tribute act capitalism strikes any “anything is possible” rhetoric as it crashes to earth over the stumbling blocks of reality.

It’s not for others to prove known challenges it’s for you to offer solutions.

Broadband infrastructure in the UK will not support what you suggest in the timeframe you suggest it.

Where have I said I’m unhappy? Certainly, I dislike having to pay for TV channels when I get most content from streamers, but that is a temporary bugbear.

I’ve already pointed to the post where you indicate that you are unhappy with the status quo. It seems incredible that you seem to think that your own narrow viewing preferences should mandate the wholesale redesign of how the television market works.

I am well aware that you also subscribe to streamers, which frankly appears to be a contradiction for you as you moan about them all the time.

I’m a rational consumer in the marketplace. I like Pepsi Max that doesn’t require me to preach the quality of PepsiCo branded products or call for the withdrawal from sale of competing products (essentially, what you are doing here.

don’t know why it is that you cannot see that if I ditch the TV channels, I will be saving money! I have the Maxit package with Sky Cinema, by the way.

Yet you don’t ditch them, despite telling us how awful they are. If you, a supposedly rational actor in the marketplace, maintain Maxit for “one or two” programmes what makes you think millions of other Virgin, or Sky, customers would not or could not do the same? To the tune of hundreds of millions in revenue.

Or that those who don’t want (or can’t afford) subscription services wouldn’t take their eyeballs (and thus advertising revenue) to competing offerings where a linear channel does close?

Your arguments sound desperate to me. Why are you telling me that some streamers also carry ‘live’ TV? Do you not realise that most people know that, and what’s it got to do with anything? We are in a transitional period and so of course, like Freely, we are being offered the choice. That will not last, of course, but I understand you cannot get your head around that.

Once again it’d be helpful if you could define linear television.

I remain uncertain what the “transition” is if these multi-billion dollar companies are maintaining high costs to provide a service it’s unclear to me how they deliver shareholder arbitrarily withdrawing it. Occam’s razor suggests the costs are low, and it drives product value to end users who, evidence suggests, actually watch it in not insignificant numbers.

As for your last comment, if TV channels are switched off, that choice will no longer exist. Just ask the ITV CEO!

If your auntie had balls… as they say.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

Apparently 97% of the UK now has access to some form of fibre broadband. Whether it's FTTC, VDSL, G. fast, cable, or FTTP.

As for energy. The National Grid have stated there is plenty of energy available for electric car charging so I'm sure it'll cope with some streaming

OB regularly claims he has “scotched” concerns over the power requirements of our national data infrastructure but that’s only because he flatly rejects stuff he can’t understand.

The power requirements of the internet are gigantic and growing, and IP is not the most energy-efficient way to deliver television - not by a long way.

National Grid has no immediate concerns about transport electrification because it believes it can expand capacity in line with new electric cars hitting the road. If we all had one tomorrow the grid would collapse. It has no concerns about IPTV as of right now, because there is no policy intent to switch off traditional free-to-air broadcast systems in the near future.

Some facts here, which OB will doubtless ignore as usual: https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=862

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No one (except you as a straw man argument) has ever said that - the difference of opinion is that most people see a blended future (streaming and TV channels), whilst you insist ad infinitum that "there can be only one!…




Also, you seem to be missing out the PSB remit in this "streaming only" future…

I understand completely the ‘blended future’ argument, but what you are missing is that this option incurs cost for the broadcasters and it is unnecessary. If that blended future choice is given to viewers, and is presented in a straight forward and intuitive manner via IPTV, the choice most people will gravitate to will be on demand, because that provides immediate gratification. Programmes can be accessed straight away rather than at a scheduled time and can be seen from the beginning rather than from part of the way through a series. That will lead to the ‘live’ TV, or whatever you want to label it, being switched off, simply because the broadcasters will no longer see the point in its continuation. Only government intervention is likely to change this.

As for the PSB remit, that is being reviewed. Why do you not believe that these things can be changed?

---------- Post added at 10:10 ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Stephen

Apparently 97% of the UK now has access to some form of fibre broadband. Whether it's FTTC, VDSL, G. fast, cable, or FTTP.

As for energy. The National Grid have stated there is plenty of energy available for electric car charging so I'm sure it'll cope with some streaming

Exactly. I’m afraid some people cannot envisage how things can, and do, change. We are running circular arguments again, so I will bow out of this debate for now. This has just become a trolling thread, which is a shame, because we could have some very interesting debates on subjects such as these.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I understand completely the ‘blended future’ argument, but what you are missing is that this option incurs cost for the broadcasters and it is unnecessary. If that blended future choice is given to viewers, and is presented in a straight forward and intuitive manner via IPTV, the choice most people will gravitate to will be on demand, because that provides immediate gratification. Programmes can be accessed straight away rather than at a scheduled time and can be seen from the beginning rather than from part of the way through a series. That will lead to the ‘live’ TV, or whatever you want to label it, being switched off, simply because the broadcasters will no longer see the point in its continuation. Only government intervention is likely to change this.

As for the PSB remit, that is being reviewed. Why do you not believe that these things can be changed?

Hitchens' Razor springs to mind...

what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

You state opinions as fact...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This has just become a trolling thread, which is a shame, because we could have some very interesting debates on subjects such as these.

There’s nothing trolling about holding your claims up to scrutiny.

You have been invited, multiple times, to opine on what the broadband solution (both on availability and affordability) is yet you regularly decline offering a simplistic “things won’t stay the same forever”.

If the answer is “free broadband for all” that’s a far greater market intervention by Government than maintaining broadcast television (none of which is mandatory above the PSB requirements). All ‘traditional’ platforms offer a far greater number of services on a commercial basis through subscription and free to air models.