VOD : Streaming services news, offers and general chit chat

Originally Posted by Chris

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



I wish you would.

Also

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse...levision-3.pdf

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

It’s not my idea or solution. I merely pointed out what was being considered.

---------- Post added at 23:50 ---------- Previous post was at 23:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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



I wish you would.

The point I was making was that you were putting forward a reason why extensive streaming couldn’t happen. I know you sourced the article, but as usual you just cannot see that these problems can be overcome.

And, of course, we are overcoming it, aren’t we?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s not my idea or solution. I merely pointed out what was being considered.

Source?

The actual link you posted doesn’t support your assertion.

The point I was making was that you were putting forward a reason why extensive streaming couldn’t happen. I know you sourced the article, but as usual you just cannot see that these problems can be overcome.

And, of course, we are overcoming it, aren’t we?

Nobody disputes problems can be overcome.

They question how rational it is to invent them then overcome them, with little/no commercial interest in doing so, as well as the political cost of inconveniencing millions of people for no objective public good merely to satisfy one lone poster on a niche internet forum.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Source?

The actual link you posted doesn’t support your assertion.



Nobody disputes problems can be overcome.

They question how rational it is to invent them then overcome them, with little/no commercial interest in doing so, as well as the political cost of inconveniencing millions of people for no objective public good merely to satisfy one lone poster on a niche internet forum.

True. However, I don’t see how that is relevant when all the broadcasters are being pointed in the direction of broadcast by IP.

In fact, the BBC has now been instructed by OFCOM to plan for just that, as I reported in an earlier post.

And the problems relating to electricity supply that Chris reported a few years ago have been overcome already, haven’t they?

I guess if you lack the imagination, it is pointless discussing the future with you guys, although I think a lot of forum members would love to discuss it if there was less hostility and cynicism on here to any discussion on the subject of what the future may have in store.

Such a pity.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s not my idea or solution. I merely pointed out what was being considered.

---------- Post added at 23:50 ---------- Previous post was at 23:48 ----------


The point I was making was that you were putting forward a reason why extensive streaming couldn’t happen. I know you sourced the article, but as usual you just cannot see that these problems can be overcome.

And, of course, we are overcoming it, aren’t we?

No it’s not…

You stated

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.

What El Gov is considering

The Government has called on all broadband providers to offer and promote social tariffs – discounted broadband and mobile deals for people on Universal Credit and other benefits

Two completely different things…

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

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

True. However, I don’t see how that is relevant when all the broadcasters are being pointed in the direction of broadcast by IP.

In fact, the BBC has now been instructed by OFCOM to plan for just that, as I reported in an earlier post.

And the problems relating to electricity supply that Chris reported a few years ago have been overcome already, haven’t they?

I guess if you lack the imagination, it is pointless discussing the future with you guys, although I think a lot of forum members would love to discuss it if there was less hostility and cynicism on here to any discussion on the subject of what the future may have in store.

Such a pity.

You have provided no evidence to support this assertion.

Also, you seem to confuse "lack the imagination" with "realistic risk assessment", just like you confuse "hostility and cynicism" with "Wah, Wah, why won’t you just agree with me!"…

Such a pity

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No it’s not…

You stated

What El Gov is considering



Two completely different things…

Actually, it is the Labour Party’s pledge to introduce free broadband if and when it wins the election. Unless of course they change their minds again.

https://labour.org.uk/press/british-...dband-for-all/

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

[/COLOR]

You have provided no evidence to support this assertion.

Also, you seem to confuse "lack the imagination" with "realistic risk assessment", just like you confuse "hostility and cynicism" with "Wah, Wah, why won’t you just agree with me!"…

Such a pity

Despite the exponential increase in the use of on demand, I see no outages….do you? And the government continues to press ahead with its objectives.

All the arguments being put up in this forum as to why things can’t be done just seem to magically fade away, don’t they?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

True. However, I don’t see how that is relevant when all the broadcasters are being pointed in the direction of broadcast by IP.

In fact, the BBC has now been instructed by OFCOM to plan for just that, as I reported in an earlier post.

And of course there’s a massive difference between a polite nudge from the regulator and Freeview closing by 2033.

And the problems relating to electricity supply that Chris reported a few years ago have been overcome already, haven’t they?

Have they? Electricity supply is much more complex than simply putting power in one side and out the other. Just ask our Prime Minister who recently had to upgrade part of his local area just for a mere swimming pool.

I’ll not pretend to know but Chris and Hugh have both offered insight on the matter.

I guess if you lack the imagination, it is pointless discussing the future with you guys, although I think a lot of forum members would love to discuss it if there was less hostility and cynicism on here to any discussion on the subject of what the future may have in store.

Such a pity.

Policy delivery and market regulation are about much more than hopes and dreams, OB.

As for the future I’ve only ever disputed your assertion on speed (unrealistic) and linear broadcasting/viewing reducing to actually zero as opposed to a significantly reduced presence. And much of that delivered online.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

And of course there’s a massive difference between a polite nudge from the regulator and Freeview closing by 2033.
.

I think you are getting desperate now, jfman. Broadcasters are unlikely to be able to use the transmitters for broadcast beyond 2035, and that’s why Ofcom, nudged by the government, is telling the Beeb to get its act together.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think you are getting desperate now, jfman. Broadcasters are unlikely to be able to use the transmitters for broadcast beyond 2035, and that’s why Ofcom, nudged by the government, is telling the Beeb to get its act together.

Source?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

Will it though ????

The article actually says Now TV is performing very well.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Actually, it is the Labour Party’s pledge to introduce free broadband if and when it wins the election. Unless of course they change their minds again.

https://labour.org.uk/press/british-...dband-for-all/

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------

[/COLOR] Despite the exponential increase in the use of on demand, I see no outages….do you? And the government continues to press ahead with its objectives.

All the arguments being put up in this forum as to why things can’t be done just seem to magically fade away, don’t they?

So, not the Government then?

You are like a man walking through a minefield, asserting there is no problem because you haven't stepped on a mine yet...

The links we posted show that streaming uses almost twice the power requirements of DTT - whilst the Utilities may be planning to try to meet this requirement, what happens if we have a re-occurrence of the recent energy crisis? (let me guess - "business will take care of it"...).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Policy delivery and market regulation are about much more than hopes and dreams, OB.

As for the future I’ve only ever disputed your assertion on speed (unrealistic) and linear broadcasting/viewing reducing to actually zero as opposed to a significantly reduced presence. And much of that delivered online.

On that, I acknowledge that linear channels may still be available on IP, and it’s certainly an option the broadcasters can take. My argument has been that they are unlikely to take that option by choice because it’s more trouble than it’s worth, but obviously if the government or the regulator says they must provide linear, they will have to comply.

Originally Posted by jfman

Source?

Source?

We don't need no steenkin' source!!!

Business, or Government, or Labour, or something something gazpacho mumble mumble will sort it out - why do you need to be so negative?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, not the Government then?

You are like a man walking through a minefield, asserting there is no problem because you haven't stepped on a mine yet...

The links we posted show that streaming uses almost twice the power requirements of DTT - whilst the Utilities may be planning to try to meet this requirement, what happens if we have a re-occurrence of the recent energy crisis? (let me guess - "business will take care of it"...).

Look, Hugh, I remember reading it somewhere, but yes, it was the Opposition, not the government that put it forward.

And incidentally, if the overwhelming number of posts in your current affairs section prove to be correct and Labour win the next election, they will be the government, won’t they?

And by the way, if the existing government wasn’t reassured about the electricity supply issue, why would it be pressing ahead with broadcast by IP?

I’m not doubting the power requirements Chris has alluded to, but the government don’t seem bothered, do they?

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Source?

We don't need no steenkin' source!!!

Business, or Government, or Labour, or something something gazpacho mumble mumble will sort it out - why do you need to be so negative?

Pathetic.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

On that, I acknowledge that linear channels may still be available on IP, and it’s certainly an option the broadcasters can take. My argument has been that they are unlikely to take that option by choice because it’s more trouble than it’s worth, but obviously if the government or the regulator says they must provide linear, they will have to comply.

Have you seen Peacock in the USA? 40 odd linear channels to complement it’s streaming offering. You’ve never had any supporting evidence for your assertion that there’s some meaningful unknown cost of maintaining a linear presence.

No Government or regulatory requirement needed.

Even then you are asking us to believe the soon to be former Government, OFCOM and the mobile networks are hatching a plan to switch off television as we know it in a mere 12 years and nobody will publicly admit it?

That’s faking the moon landings stuff.

---------- Post added at 09:49 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Look, Hugh, I remember reading it somewhere, but yes, it was the Opposition, not the government that put it forward.

And incidentally, if the overwhelming number of posts in your current affairs section prove to be correct and Labour win the next election, they will be the government, won’t they?

And by the way, if the existing government wasn’t reassured about the electricity supply issue, why would it be pressing ahead with broadcast by IP?

I’m not doubting the power requirements Chris has alluded to, but the government don’t seem bothered, do they?

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 ----------



Pathetic.

I didn’t think you could have less credibility but holding up a Corbyn manifesto commitment up 4 years after he lost the election and was replaced is quite an accomplishment.