VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

OB, your questions were based on a false premise and are therefore not relevant.

VOD subscriptions will not increase until they are universal. No subscription based service has ever achieved that.

The British power grid will never generate sufficient energy to supply continuous HD streaming to every home in the UK at the same time, because that energy requirement is simply too high. Have you not noticed the kerfuffle we're having over one new nuclear power station which won't generate any power for at least 10 years?

And, I say again, the BBC will not, ever, operate on a subscription model. Public Service Broadcasting in the UK (with the present exception of the BBC) is free-to-air, supported by advertising.

You are jumping way ahead of the facts, Chris. I have already acknowledged that VOD subscriptions will increase, so what's your point?

Your point about the British power grid - there are two issues. Firstly, each Government of the day in recent years has failed to keep up with demand, and that's nothing to do with VOD - this would have happened anyway due to the failure to update our energy generation systems.

Secondly, the energy requirement you speak of has already been reduced by 50%, so we are well on the way to addressing this problem.

I notice that you have still not answered my questions to you. I will let our fellow forum viewers draw their own conclusions.

As for your suggestion ( or assertion) that the BBC will never go to subscription only, what do you say about current Government thinking? Just because you disagree doesn't make your opinion right. Where are the facts to support your views?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/...-audience.html

This is the current government thinking, which does not include subscription only...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-fee-agreement

The green paper, to be launched with an oral statement to the House of Commons at midday on Thursday, is expected to consider changing the way the BBC is funded in the long term, while committing to the licence fee for at least five years. In a report written by Whittingdale in February, he indicated that a household levy such as that used to pay for public service television in Germany could work after the next 10-year charter review period.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

This is the current government thinking, which does not include subscription only...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-fee-agreement

But, Hugh, this relates to the next 10 years. There are technical reasons why a subscription only BBC will not work in the short term.

Fast forward 20 years and you will get a different perspective.

A common mistake on this thread is to look at the present rather than the future.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But, Hugh, this relates to the next 10 years. There are technical reasons why a subscription only BBC will not work in the short term.

Fast forward 20 years and you will get a different perspective.

A common mistake on this thread is to look at the present rather than the future.

In the absence of a working time machine, the only way to predict the future is with reference to current and past trends, economics and technical constraints and developments.

This is why you are wrong - you insist on ignoring everything that is and was, to enable your imagination to take over.

Oh, and I have answered every point you have raised, repeatedly, over the last 12 months, and am perfectly happy for "other forum members" to draw their own conclusions.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

In the absence of a working time machine, the only way to predict the future is with reference to current and past trends, economics and technical constraints and developments.

This is why you are wrong - you insist on ignoring everything that is and was, to enable your imagination to take over.

Oh, and I have answered every point you have raised, repeatedly, over the last 12 months, and am perfectly happy for "other forum members" to draw their own conclusions.

But you have only pointed out the problems. You have still not addressed the basic premise of the thread.

OK, let's take your view that there are problems that must be resolved.

If they are resolved, what then? How do the linear channels remain viable with continually reducing revenue?

You have consistently failed to answer this central question. I'm dying to hear your response, old chap.

And I'm afraid that your stance that you don't want this just doesn't cut it. The question is, how do the broadcast channels remain viable with a diminishing audience/revenue stream? What you want, I'm afraid, is beside the point.

OB, I have answered it repeatedly, but just on the off chance you have missed it, I'll repeat it:

Even if it were possible to deliver high definition video on demand to every home in the UK simultaneously, there would still be no need to do so.

VOD is a subscription based service and the UK market has demonstrated that the appetite for subscription TV is limited. Even in the USA there are signs that Netflix subscriber growth is slowing.

VOD is also, by its nature, unable to carry live TV. As soon as it does that it stops being VOD and starts being a linear service, regardless of whether it's delivered by terrestrial or satellite broadcast, or over IP.

You may not have noticed, but some of the most popular things on TV are broadcast live. (Strictly and the X factor for example, but also news and live sports on Sky or BT).

It will be necessary to retain a broadcast schedule indefinitely because live events happen according to a a schedule, and as long as that's the case, the networks that operate the scheduled broadcasts will fill in between their live output with recorded content. For this reason, even if the consumer demand for VOD subscription became half as strong as you assert it will be (and it won't), practical reasons will ensure that linear broadcast TV continues.

Now, there is nothing in the above that I have not posted before, more than once. Feel free to ignore it if you like (as you obviously have done before), but next time you set out another batch of boneheaded questions, please don't try to patronise me with childish mind games about other members' opinions.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

OB, I have answered it repeatedly, but just on the off chance you have missed it, I'll repeat it:

Even if it were possible to deliver high definition video on demand to every home in the UK simultaneously, there would still be no need to do so.

VOD is a subscription based service and the UK market has demonstrated that the appetite for subscription TV is limited. Even in the USA there are signs that Netflix subscriber growth is slowing.

VOD is also, by its nature, unable to carry live TV. As soon as it does that it stops being VOD and starts being a linear service, regardless of whether it's delivered by terrestrial or satellite broadcast, or over IP.

You may not have noticed, but some of the most popular things on TV are broadcast live. (Strictly and the X factor for example, but also news and live sports on Sky or BT).

It will be necessary to retain a broadcast schedule indefinitely because live events happen according to a a schedule, and as long as that's the case, the networks that operate the scheduled broadcasts will fill in between their live output with recorded content. For this reason, even if the consumer demand for VOD subscription became half as strong as you assert it will be (and it won't), practical reasons will ensure that linear broadcast TV continues.

Now, there is nothing in the above that I have not posted before, more than once. Feel free to ignore it if you like (as you obviously have done before), but next time you set out another batch of boneheaded questions, please don't try to patronise me with childish mind games about other members' opinions.

Chris, no-one is trying to patronise anyone; certainly not me. I just don't understand why there are some on this forum cannot contemplate change. I have given good reasons why I think that the days of linear TV are numbered. So my questions are not bone headed just because they make different presumptions than yours.

Where have I ignored your views, or those of anyone else, for that matter? I don't want to keep repeating myself, which is why I don't always answer every single point of every post.

I am, however, quite surprised that you think that you cannot stream live TV. You can, and the streaming service can announce when the stream becomes available. When we still had video tapes, it was hard to envisage how we could start watching a recording while it was still recording, but nowadays we do that all the time with our recordings on the Tivo box.

Now, what is this killer point you have made that I have ignored?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But, Hugh, this relates to the next 10 years. There are technical reasons why a subscription only BBC will not work in the short term.

Fast forward 20 years and you will get a different perspective.

A common mistake on this thread is to look at the present rather than the future.

Could I point out that to try and forecast technology directions, and consumer adoption/reaction for 20 years in the future is problematic.

20 years ago, the height of hand-held technology was a Nokia 6310, and mobile technology meant a 7lb laptop with a 13" screen, and UK satellite and cable TV was in it's infancy - no one could have forecast that we would have a handheld device that was a phone, a camera, a cine camera, a voice recorder, GPS, radio, TV, film viewer, games console, messaging system, video conferencing, etc etc., all in one handheld device.

You, or I, have no idea of the technology utilisation in 20 years time.

OB, it makes no difference whether the broadcast is an IP stream or a satellite or terrestrial radio signal. As soon as it is delivered at a pre-determined time, it is operating according to a linear schedule.

Thank you for acknowledging that linear TV can, and in fact must, continue.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

OB, it makes no difference whether the broadcast is an IP stream or a satellite or terrestrial radio signal. As soon as it is delivered at a pre-determined time, it is operating according to a linear schedule.

Thank you for acknowledging that linear TV can, and in fact must, continue.

You and I both know that I am talking about the conventional linear broadcast TV channels versus streamed video on demand.

If your answer above is the view you hold on this matter, then at last we can agree on something!

And, as has also been repeatedly pointed out to you over the last 12 months, the way in which it is delivered is not relevant. Sometimes I watch BBC1 in the kitchen via a tablet. Just because the channel is being delivered over IP doesn't mean it isn't linear broadcast TV.

Or are you subtly shifting your position in the face of evidence after all?

(No, by the way, I'm not saying all TV will be Internet-delivered in 10 years. We will have neither the bandwidth nor the power necessary in that time frame).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Could I point out that to try and forecast technology directions, and consumer adoption/reaction for 20 years in the future is problematic.

20 years ago, the height of hand-held technology was a Nokia 6310, and mobile technology meant a 7lb laptop with a 13" screen, and UK satellite and cable TV was in it's infancy - no one could have forecast that we would have a handheld device that was a phone, a camera, a cine camera, a voice recorder, GPS, radio, TV, film viewer, games console, messaging system, video conferencing, etc etc., all in one handheld device.

You, or I, have no idea of the technology utilisation in 20 years time.

I don't disagree, which is why I find it hard to understand why some cannot contemplate any change at all.

I am putting forward a 'what if...' scenario, and so far no-one has been able to put forward a solution as to how linear broadcast channels can continue to survive in this hostile environment. A lot of barriers have been put in the way, as well as personal preferences that some imagine will make a difference, but no answers to the central question as to what the conventional broadcasters may do to stave off the continuing drift towards streaming.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

And, as has also been repeatedly pointed out to you over the last 12 months, the way in which it is delivered is not relevant. Sometimes I watch BBC1 in the kitchen via a tablet. Just because the channel is being delivered over IP doesn't mean it isn't linear broadcast TV.

Or are you subtly shifting your position in the face of evidence after all?

(No, by the way, I'm not saying all TV will be Internet-delivered in 10 years. We will have neither the bandwidth nor the power necessary in that time frame).

The question relates to the survival of existing conventional linear broadcast channels with the steady and unrelenting drift towards video streaming. Once again, you have completely avoided the 'what if...' scenario.

By the way, the reference period is 20 years. That's a long time in this world of change.

They don't need to "do" anything, beyond possibly running a companion on-demand product of their own in order to retain brand loyalty. All the UK PSB operators have already done so.

VOD is a subscription product, and therefore has limited reach. To extrapolate current subscriber growth forwards and assume it will reach 100% is an erroneous use of statistics. US subscriber growth is already slowing.

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The question relates to the survival of existing conventional linear broadcast channels with the steady and unrelenting drift towards video streaming. Once again, you have completely avoided the 'what if...' scenario.

By the way, the reference period is 20 years. That's a long time in this world of change.

By the way, your reference period was 10 years...you really have shifted your view based on the evidence presented you. Well done.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Things will change radically over two decades. Look how different things are now from 1996.

Not very different. Linear TV was king in 1996. And in 1976. And in 1956. I think you have to go back to 1936 for a significant difference (when linear radio was king instead)

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by denphone

There will always be newspapers my dear chap because as you might not have realised yet and that is not everybody wants to read their content online plus there are millions who also don't have any access to the online world and never will and thus buy newspapers.

A good example is my Mum as she likes to buy her daily papers everyday even though she knows she can read it all online.

I doubt there will be as many, circulation figures are horrific and get worse year in year out, more will follow the independent online only as the elderly population dies of or just gets sick of paying to read yesterdays news today.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nation...ims-sunday-top