VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

I have no doubt Netflix is reliable for most people, most of the time. After all streaming accounts for only a fraction of TV consumption in the UK. If it were ever to get to the point where the majority preferred to stream their entertainment, we would have problems - the UK is a long way short of having the necessary data-hauling capacity, and even if it did, there aren't enough power stations to run it.

At present, broadcasters pay the satellite and transmitter companies for carriage, but they do not pay for Internet transmission. If we ever get anywhere near the levels of home streaming some here have predicted, the bandwidth and power demands will be so great, a radically different (and ultimately more expensive) funding model would be required.

Just another of the many reasons why TV Content delivery will not undergo the revolutionary shift that some here have predicted, any time in the foreseeable future.

At long last, Chris, you have concluded that the broadcast linear channels would be in difficulty if sufficient numbers embraced streaming at the expense of our traditional channels.

So the only question now is, whether the trend towards streaming will, in fact, increase substantially over the years. I think it will, because streaming is so much more efficient and you can cram more programmes that you want to watch in your available viewing time.

I don't see how the broadband and power demands you mention would be a problem. Just compare Virgin's available broadband speeds now compared to just three years ago. Things change, and they are changing at a faster and faster pace.

It is a mistake to look at how things work now and to assume that current restrictions preventing progress will always be there in the future.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ----------

Originally Posted by steveh

If streaming is currently reckoned to be around 10% of UK viewing (can only dig up a figure of 3.8% for 2014 but with growth that seems about right) then getting to 100% (which of course it won't ever need to) doesn't seem that big a stretch given advances in codecs, telecoms kit and more local CDN servers (which the big video delivery services do pay the ISPs for).

Interestingly, according to Ofcom the biggest decline in traditional TV viewing in any platform was when Netflix launched on the TiVo and were offering the six month free deals. That and a ton of other interesting info on viewing habits here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...ing_habits.pdf

Interesting. The report clearly shows that the number of people watching live broadcast TV has begun it's long decline. ITV's portfolio of channels has suffered a worrying decline in audience share.

The writing is on the wall. I believe that this decline will accelerate as time goes on. No reason to think it won't.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

At long last, Chris, you have concluded that the broadcast linear channels would be in difficulty if sufficient numbers embraced streaming at the expense of our traditional channels.

Errr ... No I haven't. The point I was making was actually so far removed from that, it's hard to know what to say to you by way of a response.

Still, at least it proves that you're basically not engaging with the issues at all - you're simply reading everything as being supportive of something you see a bright future for anyway, ultimately for no other reason than you really like it and can't understand why more people don't do it.

So the only question now is, whether the trend towards streaming will, in fact, increase substantially over the years. I think it will, because streaming is so much more efficient and you can cram more programmes that you want to watch in your available viewing time.

Further proving my point - you are welded to the idea that everyone basically wants to consume entertainment the way you do. Until you begin to accept that other people consume entertainment in different ways, you're never going to truly grapple with the issues here.

I don't see how the broadband and power demands you mention would be a problem. Just compare Virgin's available broadband speeds now compared to just three years ago. Things change, and they are changing at a faster and faster pace.

Again, proving the point that you can't, or won't, engage with anything that challenges your pre-conceived views. In fact, the point about lack of data capacity, and lack of electricity generating capacity to run it, was made months ago, with supporting links, in this very thread. Whether you can see the problem or not, is irrelevant. It exists.

Virgin Media and others are very good at advertising blisteringly fast headline speeds, but they are selling you a contended service. You share the same chunk of bandwidth with at least half your street. If the entire UK TV audience tried to consume something in HD at the same time, using the Internet as opposed to a terrestrial aerial or a satellite dish, you would very quickly learn a frustrating lesson in just how much of that 200Mbps is actually "yours".

The UK's broadband and power generating capacity is far, far short of where it would need to be in order to support the IP based system you are advocating. The information is out there, and it's in here. Try actually reading the thread. The other day you said you had yet to see any arguments here that contradicted you. I suggest this is because you're not bothering to read them (or, possibly, simply not understanding them, or else dismissing them out of hand because they tell you something you don't want to hear).

It is a mistake to look at how things work now and to assume that current restrictions preventing progress will always be there in the future.

It is a bigger mistake to insist no such restrictions exist.

Interesting. The report clearly shows that the number of people watching live broadcast TV has begun it's long decline. ITV's portfolio of channels has suffered a worrying decline in audience share.

The writing is on the wall. I believe that this decline will accelerate as time goes on. No reason to think it won't.

That's because you're making an elementary mistake in your reading of the statistics. Past trends are no guarantee of the future. Other factors play their part, as I have outlined above. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge the fuller picture, you will continue to make faulty assumptions about the development of streaming entertainment services. Incidentally, I guarantee you that these are mistakes that are not being made in the boardrooms of companies like Netflix.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Errr ... No I haven't. The point I was making was actually so far removed from that, it's hard to know what to say to you by way of a response.

Still, at least it proves that you're basically not engaging with the issues at all - you're simply reading everything as being supportive of something you see a bright future for anyway, ultimately for no other reason than you really like it and can't understand why more people don't do it.



Further proving my point - you are welded to the idea that everyone basically wants to consume entertainment the way you do. Until you begin to accept that other people consume entertainment in different ways, you're never going to truly grapple with the issues here.



Again, proving the point that you can't, or won't, engage with anything that challenges your pre-conceived views. In fact, the point about lack of data capacity, and lack of electricity generating capacity to run it, was made months ago, with supporting links, in this very thread. Whether you can see the problem or not, is irrelevant. It exists.

Virgin Media and others are very good at advertising blisteringly fast headline speeds, but they are selling you a contended service. You share the same chunk of bandwidth with at least half your street. If the entire UK TV audience tried to consume something in HD at the same time, using the Internet as opposed to a terrestrial aerial or a satellite dish, you would very quickly learn a frustrating lesson in just how much of that 200Mbps is actually "yours".

The UK's broadband and power generating capacity is far, far short of where it would need to be in order to support the IP based system you are advocating. The information is out there, and it's in here. Try actually reading the thread. The other day you said you had yet to see any arguments here that contradicted you. I suggest this is because you're not bothering to read them (or, possibly, simply not understanding them, or else dismissing them out of hand because they tell you something you don't want to hear).



It is a bigger mistake to insist no such restrictions exist.



That's because you're making an elementary mistake in your reading of the statistics. Past trends are no guarantee of the future. Other factors play their part, as I have outlined above. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge the fuller picture, you will continue to make faulty assumptions about the development of streaming entertainment services. Incidentally, I guarantee you that these are mistakes that are not being made in the boardrooms of companies like Netflix.

Having re-read your post, I did misread the bit about the problems that more people streaming would cause. I apologise for that, I was trying to do about three things at once. . However, there is no reason to believe that the capacity problems you allude to will not be resolved as more people opt for streaming. We had a capacity problem here a while ago, which affected our on demand service. This was resolved with an upgrade in our area.

On the contrary to what you have said, I do not think that everyone is wedded to my idea of viewing. Clearly, they are not yet, but as shown by the BARB figures, the trend has already started. In particular, look at how people changed their viewing habits when Netflix was launched on Virgin Media.

You are right to point to existing capacity issues, but what is it that makes you think that these won't be resolved over the next decade?

I am certainly listening to alternative arguments, and I have tried to answer your points in this post.

However, many of the arguments presented by those who don't agree with me are wedded to the idea that none of the existing barriers will be broken down. All my contacts with younger people (below 40) indicate that they have either embraced, or started to embrace, much more streaming into their regular viewing habits. My thesis is simply based on the fact that any large scale change in this direction will be disastrous to commercial TV channels.

What I cannot understand is why anyone would think that TV channels could continue to function as normal despite such changes taking place. The fact that you personally don't want this change I understand, but it's what the majority think at the end of the day that will determine the future of TV.

it's what the majority think at the end of the day that will determine the future of TV.

Exactly

Old Boy, News discussing the power demands of the UK's internet infrastructure is here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-10222638.html

I'm pretty sure that's the same link that was previously contributed to this thread.

Ignore the slightly hysterical tone of the piece and concentrate on the one, cold, hard, unavoidable fact: At its current rate of expansion, the UK part of the Internet would soak up the entire national electricity generating capacity (as at 2015), within 20 years from now. Say what you like about how quickly ISPs can lay fibre; lack of electricity generating capacity is a far harder nut to crack. It is simply inconceivable that enough extra generating capacity could be brought on stream to power the size of Internet needed to support your vision of a 100% streamed on-demand news and entertainment system. By the time the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station comes on stream, for example, it will have taken at least 15 years from the time the project was first approved, to the first few megawatts being sent to the Grid. Other, smaller, conventional plants could be brought on stream more quickly, but enough to generate the 70 Terawatt-Hours per annum that the Internet is projected to require by 2035, at current rates of expansion? Absolutely no chance whatsoever.

Even if everyone wanted to consume their news and entertainment from a variety of on-demand, streamed platforms, it is simply not possible for that to be achieved within 20 years. The economics don't add up. The practicalities don't add up. It-will-not-happen.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Old Boy, News discussing the power demands of the UK's internet infrastructure is here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-10222638.html

I'm pretty sure that's the same link that was previously contributed to this thread.

Ignore the slightly hysterical tone of the piece and concentrate on the one, cold, hard, unavoidable fact: At its current rate of expansion, the UK part of the Internet would soak up the entire national electricity generating capacity (as at 2015), within 20 years from now. Say what you like about how quickly ISPs can lay fibre; lack of electricity generating capacity is a far harder nut to crack. It is simply inconceivable that enough extra generating capacity could be brought on stream to power the size of Internet needed to support your vision of a 100% streamed on-demand news and entertainment system. By the time the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station comes on stream, for example, it will have taken at least 15 years from the time the project was first approved, to the first few megawatts being sent to the Grid. Other, smaller, conventional plants could be brought on stream more quickly, but enough to generate the 70 Terawatt-Hours per annum that the Internet is projected to require by 2035, at current rates of expansion? Absolutely no chance whatsoever.

Even if everyone wanted to consume their news and entertainment from a variety of on-demand, streamed platforms, it is simply not possible for that to be achieved within 20 years. The economics don't add up. The practicalities don't add up. It-will-not-happen.

Thank you, Chris, that has thrown some light on why you believe that the future I have described cannot come about.

However, as with so many arguments on this thread, there is an assumption that we will still have the same problems in the future as we have now. New technologies will see us through in the end and there are innovations that no-one has yet thought of that will overcome issues that some believe will mean that ideas expressed on here can never come about.

For example, a quick look at the internet this morning revealed this interesting piece. Took me 3 minutes to find it.

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tech...dio-waves.html

This may or may not be how the problem is eventually overcome. The issues may alternatively be resolved by a system of demand dispatch or a whole host of other methods that are currently being investigated to resolve problems such as these.

To say that 'it will never happen' based on what we have and what we know now is not a credible position to take on its own. Sure, there's work to do, but we are talking about 20 years' time. Hell, we didn't have broadband 20 years' ago!

The problem you identify is a real one, but it will be overcome in the fairly near future.

Well, since there hasn't been any major breakthrough in Power Generation technology in the last 30-odd years, I would say you are being a tad optimistic...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Thank you, Chris, that has thrown some light on why you believe that the future I have described cannot come about.

However, as with so many arguments on this thread, there is an assumption that we will still have the same problems in the future as we have now. New technologies will see us through in the end and there are innovations that no-one has yet thought of that will overcome issues that some believe will mean that ideas expressed on here can never come about.

For example, a quick look at the internet this morning revealed this interesting piece. Took me 3 minutes to find it.

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tech...dio-waves.html

This may or may not be how the problem is eventually overcome. The issues may alternatively be resolved by a system of demand dispatch or a whole host of other methods that are currently being investigated to resolve problems such as these.

To say that 'it will never happen' based on what we have and what we know now is not a credible position to take on its own. Sure, there's work to do, but we are talking about 20 years' time. Hell, we didn't have broadband 20 years' ago!

The problem you identify is a real one, but it will be overcome in the fairly near future.

It took you three minutes to find a link that doesn't address the problem, let alone propose a solution. Again, I suspect that you're not engaging with this issue any deeper than "I like it, therefore everyone will like it, and everyone's home will become like mine". You go on the Internet and look only as far as you think you need to, to find something which on first glance, appears to support your pre-conceived beliefs about the future.

Harvesting a few watts from stray radio transmissions is all very well, but the developers themselves see this as a means of powering small, low-power devices such as wireless sensors and security cameras. It isn't going to get anywhere near the 70+ terawatt-hours per annum that our national Internet infrastructure is projected to require within the next 20 years, at current rate of expansion.

You can't get around the simple, practical obstacle here: the only thing that can generate the kind of power needed to bring about your vision of the future is a power station. Actually, lots of power stations. Big ones. They are very expensive to build, and take years from planning to commissioning.

And here's one for you, Sherlock: the developers are mostly harvesting power from TV transmissions (presumably because these are the highest-powered and most widely dispersed).

What will happen to their experiments if all the TV transmitters are switched off, as you keep predicting?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

It took you three minutes to find a link that doesn't address the problem, let alone propose a solution. Again, I suspect that you're not engaging with this issue any deeper than "I like it, therefore everyone will like it, and everyone's home will become like mine". You go on the Internet and look only as far as you think you need to, to find something which on first glance, appears to support your pre-conceived beliefs about the future.

Harvesting a few watts from stray radio transmissions is all very well, but the developers themselves see this as a means of powering small, low-power devices such as wireless sensors and security cameras. It isn't going to get anywhere near the 70+ terawatt-hours per annum that our national Internet infrastructure is projected to require within the next 20 years, at current rate of expansion.

You can't get around the simple, practical obstacle here: the only thing that can generate the kind of power needed to bring about your vision of the future is a power station. Actually, lots of power stations. Big ones. They are very expensive to build, and take years from planning to commissioning.

And here's one for you, Sherlock: the developers are mostly harvesting power from TV transmissions (presumably because these are the highest-powered and most widely dispersed).

What will happen to their experiments if all the TV transmitters are switched off, as you keep predicting?

I'm trying (not very successfully) to demonstrate that technological solutions become available when the demand is there to solve a problem.

You have presented a doomsday scenario, which is what the media tries to do all the time. You need to balance this with the facts.

Did you also read that Andrew Lord, head of optical research at BT and a visiting professor at Essex University, is insistent that scientists will come up with a solution. He reckons that storing information in large 'server farms', rather than transferring it, would take the strain off the network. The internet is not about to collapse and it has a lot of bandwidth left in it is what he says.

Additionally, BT is working with leading universities on new research to ensure future demand for the internet is met. A BT spokeswoman is reported to have said:

"The current generation of technology will exceed bandwidth needs for many years to come, but of course new technologies will be needed to cope with continued growth in demand further into the future.

"We're now working with leading universities and other global operators to kick off a new phase of research, ensuring that we move beyond the limitations of the current generation of technology to meet customers' demands in future decades.'

I am not saying there are no problems, but we will resolve them. Not many years ago, we were told that fossil fuels would run out in 2050. Not the case now, though, is it, with more exploration discovering new oil fields, the advent of fracking, etc.

Just because we cannot do something now does not mean that we will not be doing it in the future. The world will move on, as it always does.

You're simply unable - or unwilling - to deal with the scale of the problem.

None of these experts foresees a crippling problem, because nobody who knows anything about the subject, seriously believes the UK will have switched off broadcast TV and transferred our entire news and entertainment provision to IP-based services, not now, nor in 10 or 20 years time.

Throughout this thread you have been predicting the end of linear TV based on nothing more than your fondness for the alternative.

Others have pointed out to you that:

- a linear TV schedule provides least friction for a busy consumer with limited appetite to make conscious choices;
- any live event is, and will always be, by its very nature, broadcast according to a linear schedule;
- one-way transmission by satellite or terrestrial transmitter is a vastly more efficient way of delivering high-bandwidth content to large numbers of people simultaneously. This requires scheduled broadcast, even if the end user stores transmissions (TiVo or similar) for later consumption on-demand;
- scheduled broadcast puts large numbers of people within reach of advertisers simultaneously;
- it also increases the number of simultaneous views of content, allowing for popular shows to achieve the prized "water-cooler moment" that further publicises them;
- all of which is essential, given the high cost of quality, original TV.
- and, not forgetting, the hard fact that the internet's projected future bandwidth and energy requirement is already enormous, without the added burden of putting our entire TV system onto it.

These are the facts. Nobody wants the future you keep pushing, in sufficient numbers to make it happen. On-demand streaming has its place in the mix, but that's all it will be for the foreseeable future.

[Horizon]

If BBC One, Two, ITV, CH4 & Ch5 all broadcast high quality programmes all the time, then I would agree that everyone would probably just sit down in front of their tellies and never even think of words like Netflix, or boxsets again. But in the real world that's not the case.

The other day, a few people quipped when I said that 7 million viewers still watch depressing crap like Eastenders at Christmas as evidence than an all linear world is as strong as ever. There are over 60 million people in this country.... most are choosing not to waste their lives with this rubbish being served up like cold turkey by the broadcasters.

I think this is as much, if not more, a discussion about the quality of tv, rather than whether it be linear, non-linear, streamed or whatever. As long as you can still watch something on the box, most people won't care whether it's broadcast, streamed etc.

If the world were to stay all linear, then I'd agree with Chris that the traditional broadcast model is the way to go. But it's not and another major factor today is mobile. People are consuming content on various devices and in various places. Some of this is linear, traditional tv channels. But many of it is not.

I won't even go into the "mad" professor's arguments in that article, he is mixing together and confusing power consumption with bandwidth.

But on the subject of bandwidth, I present to you one word "multicast", sounds sexy, doesn't it?

On cable at least, VM will eventually go down the multicast route, meaning everything will become streamed aka video on demand (VOD) including linear "broadcast" channels, except they won't be broadcast.... they'll be VOD streams instead.

There will come a point soon when all the big media companies and telcos decide how they are going to deliver content to consumers in an increasingly non-linear world. It will be the mother of all bust ups, and we've already seen early rounds of fighting between them in recent years, especially in America.

As I've said before, I think we'll end up with a small core group of linear channels, but everything, at least on cable, will become VOD.

The delivery methods will all merge. So you may be watching a show on a mobile device while walking home and transfer your watching of that show or "channel" to your main tv when you get home. It is quite possible that to have watched that show it may have been delivered to you (or broadcast) using several different methods, but you won't notice any difference.

The change will be that linear and non-linear watching of tv will become so seamless, you will not notice whether it's a "proper" channel or not.

[steveh]

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually, if the national news and entertainment infrastructure is ever to transfer to exclusively IP-based delivery, then 100% penetration is exactly what it *will* need to achieve. Why would you think otherwise?

Was a bit too concise in what I wrote - what I meant was that terrestrial and satellite delivery of linear channels are likely to persist for a long time and I think will still be a significant part of viewing in ten years, say, especially amongst older viewers. However, ultimately everything is likely to move to IP or its successors.

Originally Posted by Chris

Virgin Media and others are very good at advertising blisteringly fast headline speeds, but they are selling you a contended service. You share the same chunk of bandwidth with at least half your street. If the entire UK TV audience tried to consume something in HD at the same time, using the Internet as opposed to a terrestrial aerial or a satellite dish, you would very quickly learn a frustrating lesson in just how much of that 200Mbps is actually "yours".

You're unlikely to get corporations investing so far ahead of demand, except for oddities like Google with their fibre service in the US. While there will obviously be technical hurdles to overcome I don't believe there are barriers that will prevent the bandwidth that is needed from being available at the time it is required.

Originally Posted by Horizon

But on the subject of bandwidth, I present to you one word "multicast", sounds sexy, doesn't it?

It's also something that has been regularly pointed to as being the solution for many years - BBC R&D were doing experiments in TV multicast delivery across ISPs back in 2000ish - but whose practical realities have made it very difficult to deploy. Increases in bandwidth are perhaps likely to make it irrelevant before the issues with multicast can be resolved.

Originally Posted by Horizon

The change will be that linear and non-linear watching of tv will become so seamless, you will not notice whether it's a "proper" channel or not.

I share your desire for an intelligent TV that can personalise a night's viewing for its watchers but it's going to be very difficult to achieve, primarily due to the cooperation required between the stakeholders. TV content owners are desperate not to see the same thing happen as in print where the majority of the money, control and data have ended up in the hands of Facebook and Google. Because of this they want to control streaming services as their own fully independent fiefdoms.

There's also the issue of who would invest in developing such a service - TV and STB manufacturers have tiny margins that can't be stretched, old-school media companies have typically been terrible at investing in technology and spend all their time in endless committees or fighting when they do try and work together (witness YouView), while telecoms companies don't really have the vision for it. When we do eventually get such a service it will probably be from the usual Internet giants with serious data mining abilities and in the aftermath of a massive battle with content owners.

[Khenryashley]

The other day, a few people quipped when I said that 7 million viewers still watch depressing crap like Eastenders at Christmas as evidence than an all linear world is as strong as ever. There are over 60 million people in this country.... most are choosing not to waste their lives with this rubbish being served up like cold turkey by the broadcasters.

Reply to Horizon
Are viewing figures counted on the average people per household or per household. I'm not sure but that could change the 7 million viewers stat.

[muppetman11]

Can some of the decline in the terrestrial channels viewing numbers not be down to a larger range of available linear channels ? So in fact people are still watching linear however spread across a larger number of channels.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Can some of the decline in the terrestrial channels viewing numbers not be down to a larger range of available linear channels ? So in fact people are still watching linear however spread across a larger number of channels.

Very true. I'd say the rise of people who are online gaming and those who spend hours per day on Social Media also impact TV viewing figures.