VOD : Streaming services news, offers and general chit chat

"something magic will happen", "business will sort it out, gazpacho, mumble, something something..."

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

Why would they be taken over? The current TV transmission network isn’t sufficient for 5G mobile. Your average mobile mast transmits a range of a few miles radius maximum - the extremely high bandwidth 5G has an even lower range at entirely different frequencies.

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.

Source?

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.

A lot of big ifs and buts there. Nothing concrete to keep the revenue gravy train running for the big broadcasters on Freeview.

[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.

Well, let’s cut the sarky comments Chris or I’ll remind everyone that just a few years ago you claimed that there was not enough electricity to extend the current system to on demand only - oops, sorry, I just did!

Let’s stick to what we know. Firstly, you will surely be aware that a proposal to devote the broadcast spectrum to 5G mobiles is being considered globally, and that may well lead to the whole of the current bandwidth being so designated. If that happens, and a decision is expected soon, then converting to IP delivered TV will happen, no matter what you or anyone else says.

The government is already thinking in that direction anyway. The BBC has been instructed to prepare for an IP onl future. To wit:

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

I am well aware that there are challenges, but what is it that makes you think they are insurmountable?

And for God’s sake, it is not my desired outcome. I’m just setting out how I see TV being delivered in the future. I’ve been saying this for eight years now, and bit by bit, we are still edging along to the very outcome that I have thought would come about all along. It is incredible that you are still fighting this notion, despite what you can see happening in front of your own eyes.

There is the linear channels/on demand debate, and we’ll see what happens there. I believe that the broadcast channels will be looking at going on demand only, because it is easier and less costly. If the linear channels are retained as now but via IP, it will only be because the government/OFCOM have decreed that it must happen. I don’t believe the broadcasters themselves will make that decision.

I think the FAST channels may be short lived because people will tire of them. They are not really proper channels and don’t provide the range or standard of viewing of the main channels we have today - even in their existing dumbed-down state. You make a point about the cost for smaller operators. Well, it seems that very small enterprises can and do add their limited content on platforms like Roku, so I’m sure that a new Freeview IP site could be set up to accommodate them if required. There is no reason why Freeview cannot be replicated on the internet, although I think that rather than the existing linear channels, each broadcaster will have their on demand services listed as we do under the ‘Apps’ section of our set top boxes.

A majority of the population already access their programmes on demand and say they prefer it. Which way are we going? I think it’s a no-brainer.

[Gavin-D]

Seems like Sky Glass is not proving as popular as Sky/Comcast had hoped

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...-in-glass.html

A majority of the population already access their programmes on demand and say they prefer it.

Link, please?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Source?

.

To be clear, there has been discussion, but in terms of what is actually happening now it’s lower tariffs for people on benefits.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/c...14-august-2022

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Gavin-D

Seems like Sky Glass is not proving as popular as Sky/Comcast had hoped

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...-in-glass.html

No, because the TV won’t work as intended without a Sky subscription. Sky Stream should be more successful.

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Link, please?

Why not just Google it, Hugh?

Here’s one, but it’s been reported quite widely.

https://www.statista.com/topics/9435...nited-kingdom/

Nothing in that link supports your statement that

A majority of the population already access their programmes on demand and say they prefer it.

I did "google it", and couldn’t find anything that supports your assertion

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nothing in that link supports your statement that

I did "google it", and couldn’t find anything that supports your assertion

https://advanced-television.com/2021...of-uk-viewing/

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

To be clear, there has been discussion, but in terms of what is actually happening now it’s lower tariffs for people on benefits.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/c...14-august-2022

So to be clear there’s no plans, no commitment, no nothing.

Ironically the CEO of that innovative, problem solving, dynamic capitalist enterprise that is BT Group called the Government position unsustainable.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...d-tariffs.html

So who is going to pony up for all this OB? The taxpayer? To achieve what? To benefit who?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So to be clear there’s no plans, no commitment, no nothing.

Ironically the CEO of that innovative, problem solving, dynamic capitalist enterprise that is BT Group called the Government position unsustainable.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...d-tariffs.html

So who is going to pony up for all this OB? The taxpayer? To achieve what? To benefit who?

I think you should take off your blinkers, jf man!

As to who pays, it will be the taxpayer, who else? The internet needs to be available for everyone because it is very quickly becoming a necessity, not only for TV viewing.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think you should take off your blinkers, jf man!

As to who pays, it will be the taxpayer, who else? The internet needs to be available for everyone because it is very quickly becoming a necessity, not only for TV viewing.

And what happens when millions of people cancel their internet connections to claim free “necessity internet”?

I knew you’d continue to clutch at straws pushing the needless agenda but I didn’t think you’d resort to Corbynism as the answer to achieve it.

A multi-billion pound answer as a solution to a problem we invent.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

https://advanced-television.com/2021...of-uk-viewing/

Research into the use of Connected TVs to access VoD content carried out by video advertising software provider FreeWheel suggests that the majority (61 per cent) of Connected TV users surveyed say it is their preferred device for watching video

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...uk-households/

"suggests"…

61% of 67% (41%) is not a "majority of the population"…

[OLD BOY]

I know it’s not, Hugh, but I can’t remember where I saw that statement. It was a newspaper, I think.

Nevertheless, the research carried out on this and other sites show the popularity of streaming in no uncertain terms.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know it’s not, Hugh, but I can’t remember where I saw that statement. It was a newspaper, I think.

Nevertheless, the research carried out on this and other sites show the popularity of streaming in no uncertain terms.

And in a binary world that might be relevant.

Odd how you’ve went from “freeview over IP” back to solely streaming and the end of linear television. Perhaps why nobody is in any rush!

---------- Post added at 21:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, let’s cut the sarky comments Chris or I’ll remind everyone that just a few years ago you claimed that there was not enough electricity to extend the current system to on demand only - oops, sorry, I just did!

Have you got any evidence that it’s not true?

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news...ectricity-grid

A significant amount of planning goes into the power grid and keeping the lights on. Would the networks cope with an effective doubling of consumption in terms of hours, but all of those set piece “live” events being streamed instead of live on terrestrial, satellite or cable television? What makes you think the broadband networks have the capacity to move around that much data?

Again the evidence from the pandemic shows OFCOM working with the gaming industry to ensure large downloads weren’t released at peak times causing spikes and capacity issues.

Let’s stick to what we know. Firstly, you will surely be aware that a proposal to devote the broadcast spectrum to 5G mobiles is being considered globally, and that may well lead to the whole of the current bandwidth being so designated. If that happens, and a decision is expected soon, then converting to IP delivered TV will happen, no matter what you or anyone else says.

Proposal, considered, may and if.

The government is already thinking in that direction anyway. The BBC has been instructed to prepare for an IP onl future. To wit:

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

I am well aware that there are challenges, but what is it that makes you think they are insurmountable?

The thing is, OB, nobody says these are insurmountable challenges. What we don’t believe is that anyone will devote the time, money or effort required given the significant commercial interests at sake.

And for God’s sake, it is not my desired outcome. I’m just setting out how I see TV being delivered in the future. I’ve been saying this for eight years now, and bit by bit, we are still edging along to the very outcome that I have thought would come about all along. It is incredible that you are still fighting this notion, despite what you can see happening in front of your own eyes.

If it’s not a desirable outcome - from your own point of view - why are you wasting time consistently parroting the same message against the overwhelming evidence and views of almost everyone else on the forum - some of whom have expertise in either the television or telecommunications industry!

There is the linear channels/on demand debate, and we’ll see what happens there. I believe that the broadcast channels will be looking at going on demand only, because it is easier and less costly. If the linear channels are retained as now but via IP, it will only be because the government/OFCOM have decreed that it must happen. I don’t believe the broadcasters themselves will make that decision.

I think the FAST channels may be short lived because people will tire of them. They are not really proper channels and don’t provide the range or standard of viewing of the main channels we have today - even in their existing dumbed-down state. You make a point about the cost for smaller operators. Well, it seems that very small enterprises can and do add their limited content on platforms like Roku, so I’m sure that a new Freeview IP site could be set up to accommodate them if required. There is no reason why Freeview cannot be replicated on the internet, although I think that rather than the existing linear channels, each broadcaster will have their on demand services listed as we do under the ‘Apps’ section of our set top boxes.

I’m entertained that Freeview over IP has gone from the solution to undesirable in a mere few hours.

A majority of the population already access their programmes on demand and say they prefer it. Which way are we going? I think it’s a no-brainer.

Aside from being not true, a not insignificant amount of television consumption remains live and linear broadcast. And before you throw around accusations of not being able to see the wood from the trees I’m currently streaming Arsenal v Chelsea from a legitimate subscription to overseas broadcaster. But I can objectively look at the whole marketplace and see not everyone would do the same as me. 50 seconds behind live according to my bookmaker of choice for those rare occasions I might place a small wager.

Nobody wants to watch live sport and hear their neighbour cheer a goal almost a full minute ahead of them. Or have to avoid social media for the duration.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, let’s cut the sarky comments Chris or I’ll remind everyone that just a few years ago you claimed that there was not enough electricity to extend the current system to on demand only - oops, sorry, I just did!

I’m curious, though pleased, that you’re so willing to undermine your own argument in this way. This point was sourced at the time, and is easy to source now as plenty of research is ongoing.

Electricity usage by information technologies was around 2,000 terawatt-hours in 2010; by most estimates it will exceed 8,000 terawatt-hours by the end of this decade. That’s around 20% of global electricity consumption. The worst case estimate is up to 50%.

If you think that driving TV broadcast infrastructure onto data networks won’t have a significant impact on the national grid, I’d love some of what you’re smoking.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...14629618301051

Let’s stick to what we know.

I wish you would.