VOD : Linear is old tech - on demand is the future

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Or bending the facts, more like!

When one has a differing opinion l would not call it bending the facts OB as healthy reasoned rational debate is part of what a forum is all about.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

When one has a differing opinion l would not call it bending the facts OB as healthy reasoned rational debate is part of what a forum is all about.

I have no problems with healthy, reasoned debate, Den, but I was talking about bending the facts of what I have said in the past. Much of the dessent on here is not supported by facts, reports or articles, but by personal opinion.

Personal opinions are fine, particularly about the future, which cannot be predicted with great accuracy, but what is inexcusable is those who insist a person is wrong without any supporting evidence. That is no better than the flat-earther brigades who tried to ridicule those who said the world was actually a globe, and that it was the earth revolving around the sun instead of vice versa, and so forth.

What we all agree on is that the viewing of streaming services is increasing at the expense of our TV channels. Where will it all end? That is the debate. However, there is little debate - just silly remarks and people saying it won't happen without any justification. That is not debate, is it?

Oh this is hilarious.

OB, all you have ever offered here is your opinions, with the opinions of others as your ‘evidence’.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I have no problems with healthy, reasoned debate, Den, but I was talking about bending the facts of what I have said in the past. Much of the dessent on here is not supported by facts, reports or articles, but by personal opinion.

Personal opinions are fine, particularly about the future, which cannot be predicted with great accuracy, but what is inexcusable is those who insist a person is wrong without any supporting evidence. That is no better than the flat-earther brigades who tried to ridicule those who said the world was actually a globe, and that it was the earth revolving around the sun instead of vice versa, and so forth.

What we all agree on is that the viewing of streaming services is increasing at the expense of our TV channels. Where will it all end? That is the debate. However, there is little debate - just silly remarks and people saying it won't happen without any justification. That is not debate, is it?

So answer how ITV is going to be without good content despite having one of the biggest production companies in the world.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

So answer how ITV is going to be without good content despite having one of the biggest production companies in the world.

Whilst OB does sometimes come across more as a Comical Ali type and less a Nick Davies type, the issue with ITV is the huge cut in advertising spend which is reducing its ability to invest in productions and bid for talent.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

So answer how ITV is going to be without good content despite having one of the biggest production companies in the world.

Indeed.

The five PSBs plus Sky all have their own studios, plus the capacity to commission external companies to produce ideas that have been developed in-house. None of them rely on bidding for third party content to fill their schedules - not even Sky, which saw the threat coming some years ago and has been developing its in-house capacity for some time now.

The smaller channels largely rely on endless repeats of content previously shown on one of the PSBs+Sky, similar to the syndication system in the US. It is these channels that provide simple, free-of-charge access to old shows that are nice to dip into for old times sake but are not often worth having the sort of box set access you get from Prime Video. This is the stuff you watch on a whim when you can’t be bothered through Netflix menus or entering search terms using your fiddly remote control.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Whilst OB does sometimes come across more as a Comical Ali type and less a Nick Davies type, the issue with ITV is the huge cut in advertising spend which is reducing its ability to invest in productions and bid for talent.

And nobody can argue about its cut in advertising revenue but to suggest it will be left without any decent content is a little extreme to say the least especially as I say owing to the fact it owns huge production businesses.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I have no problems with healthy, reasoned debate, Den, but I was talking about bending the facts of what I have said in the past. Much of the dessent on here is not supported by facts, reports or articles, but by personal opinion.

Personal opinions are fine, particularly about the future, which cannot be predicted with great accuracy, but what is inexcusable is those who insist a person is wrong without any supporting evidence. That is no better than the flat-earther brigades who tried to ridicule those who said the world was actually a globe, and that it was the earth revolving around the sun instead of vice versa, and so forth.

What we all agree on is that the viewing of streaming services is increasing at the expense of our TV channels. Where will it all end? That is the debate. However, there is little debate - just silly remarks and people saying it won't happen without any justification. That is not debate, is it?

Pretty sure quoting from from a leading Technical expert in Broadcast technology at the BBC, as I have done, is "supporting evidence", which in his case, is unbiased...

[Raider999]

Because of Covid, there is very little new content anywhere - the exception being live sport.

A look through the listings shows repeat after repeat (especially on BBC).

I'm sure it is little different on the streamers.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your reality is different from actual reality, jfman. All the media press is wrong and you are right. That is a given in your perverse world.

What media press? I only see blogs.

A decent debate on these issues would be good on a forum of this nature rather than pathetic attempts at ridicule because you are losing the argument. I accept you are not the only one, since there are a number of posters who love channel numbers and don't want change, but you have been particularly argumentative - not only on this subject, but on a whole range of subjects.

Let's have a sensible debate instead of these interminable put-downs and sour remarks.

Even you have had to admit that the number of viewing hours on the streaming services is starting to outstrip viewing on traditional channels.

You are now being ridiculous Old Boy. You are asking me to admit to a point that I've literally never contested. What I've contested and asked you to demonstrate, but been unable to, is where linear live broadcasting - over any method (DTT, satellite, cable or IPTV) reaches zero. Not small/tiny/limited. Actually zero.

The main difference in the argument now is where this is all going to end, and in particular, the survivability of the broadcast linear channels.

I do not subscribe to your view that these channels will keep going regardless of the number of viewers. Why would they bother? Once the need for any service drops to below a certain level, it ceases to be provided. It happened with VHS tapes, with Amazon Fire Phones, with Izal toilet paper....Or bending the facts, more like!

All of those examples have high costs despite limited use with the fixed costs being absorbed over a smaller customer base as demand diminishes. The continued manufacture of products of limited or near-zero demand have - what we call in economics - opportunity costs. What else could that factory make? What else could the distribution chains be used for?

The same principles don't apply, regardless of how much you wish them to, to linear, broadcast television. The costs of broadcast (for major content owners and distributors) are near zero in terms of overall revenue, reach is millions of homes.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

The BBC’s charter expires in 2027, so it’s going to be around, charging a licence fee and broadcasting linear TV, for 7 more years as a bare minimum.

Because negotiations for the new charter need to finish around 5-6 years from now, if there was any serious prospect of the BBC losing the right to charge a universal fee for its services, you would be hearing serious people starting to talk about it by now. That means we are going to have a publicly funded BBC until at least 2037, although the precise means of revenue gathering may well change in some way (a broadband tax is possible IMO).

However let us please not drift into yet another licence fee thread. This topic is about content delivery technology, not the way it’s paid for.

The abolition of the licence fee (Mod edit, Chris) ... is clearly not the topic of this thread, as I’ve already stated.

[jfman]

While I certainly don’t see the point in this thread discussing the merits or otherwise of the licence fee - it’s a tedious subject exhausted plenty of times for over 20 years now - I do think it’s abolition is key to Old Boy’s dreams being realised by critically undermining the UK television industry.

If there’s a way to ensure any North American tat dominates the airwaves (or the fibre) it’s the terminal decline of the UK television industry.

While there’s a licence fee there’s going to be plenty of low cost, affordable, British repeat content (from BBC and ITV) for linear channels to feast upon for decades to come.

[1andrew1]

More pesky linear TV channels launching on selected smart TVs.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2020...ermany-and-uk/

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

More pesky linear TV channels launching on selected smart TVs.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2020...ermany-and-uk/

Apart from Hisense this is not on any major brands or devices has fail written all over it unless they pull their finger out.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Oh this is hilarious.

OB, all you have ever offered here is your opinions, with the opinions of others as your ‘evidence’.

I have provided plenty of links to support my views on this over the last five years or so and I would remind you that I was once ridiculed for suggesting that streaming services were the future. Now the streaming services are starting to dominate viewer choices, the main issue is whether the TV channels will close down. Perceptions change over time.

I have said why I believe what I do, and whilst others can prefer other outcomes, they express these in a way that indicate very strongly that I am wrong, with no evidence to support these views themselves, and not wanting any debate about it.

Nobody knows who will be proved right as we are talking about what things will look like 15 years from now. I am just stating my belief in what will happen, and I stand by that.

I am not the only one offering opinions on here, but it is obvious that some contributors don't want any change - they want no dissention on that, and cannot contemplate life without inflexible schedules, EPGs and channel numbers.

Well, good luck if you hold that view, that's what I say!

---------- Post added at 15:43 ---------- Previous post was at 15:39 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

While I certainly don’t see the point in this thread discussing the merits or otherwise of the licence fee - it’s a tedious subject exhausted plenty of times for over 20 years now - I do think it’s abolition is key to Old Boy’s dreams being realised by critically undermining the UK television industry.

If there’s a way to ensure any North American tat dominates the airwaves (or the fibre) it’s the terminal decline of the UK television industry.

While there’s a licence fee there’s going to be plenty of low cost, affordable, British repeat content (from BBC and ITV) for linear channels to feast upon for decades to come.

It's so not! The only connection is that as people pay for more streaming services, they will question more why they are paying for services they don't use.