VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[OLD BOY]

Yes, good article, bringing out the point that linear TV channels will have to re-invent themselves to survive. I'm not sure how they will do this in order to retain sufficient viewers, which is why I have been pessimistic about their ability survive. Maybe one of the answers is more interactive programmes so that viewers can participate, which you cannot do with on demand.

Where I disagree with the item is the assertion that live tv can only be broadcast via linear tv channels. We have discussed already the fact that live tv can be streamed.

Talking of which....

http://www.csimagazine.com/csi/Faceb...ball-match.php

[denphone]

Nice to see you still have your rose tinted glasses on OB.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, good article, bringing out the point that linear TV channels will have to re-invent themselves to survive. I'm not sure how they will do this in order to retain sufficient viewers, which is why I have been pessimistic about their ability survive. Maybe one of the answers is more interactive programmes so that viewers can participate, which you cannot do with on demand.

Where I disagree with the item is the assertion that live tv can only be broadcast via linear tv channels. We have discussed already the fact that live tv can be streamed.

Talking of which....

http://www.csimagazine.com/csi/Faceb...ball-match.php

A stream dedicated to live programming *is* a linear TV channel, OB. You keep doing semantic back-flips in order to try to claim it's something that it's not, because aside from all other arguments about power consumption, bandwidth availability and viewer habits, this one fact is the one that comprehensively demonstrates your original predictions must be false.

It makes no difference whether the broadcast is over terrestrial, satellite, coaxial cable or IP. A live channel, requiring by its nature a schedule, is a linear channel.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

A stream dedicated to live programming *is* a linear TV channel, OB. You keep doing semantic back-flips in order to try to claim it's something that it's not, because aside from all other arguments about power consumption, bandwidth availability and viewer habits, this one fact is the one that comprehensively demonstrates your original predictions must be false.

It makes no difference whether the broadcast is over terrestrial, satellite, coaxial cable or IP. A live channel, requiring by its nature a schedule, is a linear channel.

You know very well, Chris, that the comparison is with the conventional linear TV channels.

Forgive my shorthand, but I don't think most people are concerned with the semantics you are employing to avoid the subject.

To be clear, there is no dispute that a live channel includes streaming. However, the user does notice a very big difference between the two. So if the conventional TV channels are replaced entirely by on demand and streaming services, this will make a big difference to the perception of TV viewing to the man in the street.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You know very well, Chris, that the comparison is with the conventional linear TV channels.

No - I'm holding you to your original argument, not the one you've subtly shifted on to and hoped nobody would notice (bad luck, we did ).

That is precisely the semantic gymnastics I'm talking about. There is nothing in your original postings, over the first couple of months of this thread, that will back up your claim that you were actually referring to broadcast technology rather than the linear nature of programming. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Chris

No - I'm holding you to your original argument, not the one you've subtly shifted on to and hoped nobody would notice (bad luck, we did ).

That is precisely the semantic gymnastics I'm talking about. There is nothing in your original postings, over the first couple of months of this thread, that will back up your claim that you were actually referring to broadcast technology rather than the linear nature of programming. Quite the opposite in fact.

Err,, if you look at his 2nd post onwards, he is actually talking about viewing on demand programmes but based on a linear schedule. Such a "channel" could not be broadcast, so he has been consistent.

He may get confused about whether something is broadcast or not, or whether a programme is live or not, but he has been pretty consistent all along.

Linear programmes aka live shows, will be around probably forever. I don't see live news, football stopping anytime soon. But whether linear tv channels will be around in the years and decades ahead is arguable. Very. All the evidence says they won't.

The only real mistake he made was in his first post in thinking that the BBC was going to be launching some revolutionary new show that would blur the lines between linear tv and on demand. I thought the same as him.

I assumed we would be able to go into iplayer, on demand, and watch Victoria Derbyshire live. That was wrong, but it is clear what he was saying from the very beginning.

I'm on Old Boy's side on this one!

[OLD BOY]

Thank you, Horizon. Chris knows what I mean but I'm afraid he is being deliberately argumentative.

The points he makes I have answered on a number of occasions now. I am really not trying to avoid the issues and he has made some useful points about capacity.

The language I have used is populist rather than technical and I apologise for any genuine confusion about that. However, I am certainly not the only one who does this either on the forum or in comparison with other articles.

Most people refer to the BBC iPlayer as an on demand service and fail to distinguish the separate live streaming part of it as anything different.

[Horizon]

.... its because sometimes you are confusing different things, ie using the word streamed, which can have different meanings. When you say streamed, you are thinking of it in on demand terms, I believe. Whereas others here are thinking of it as another way to "broadcast" channels. It can be both and that's one of the things causing confusion. You can have streamed a live linear channel, a non-live linear channel, a live on demand programme and a non-live on demand programme.

======

Where we are at now is a stepping stone. We have linear tv channels, both free and pay tv channels. We also have on demand in its various forms.

THe next step is that the on demand part will get far more intelligent. Over time the menus on Netflix etc will go, perhaps in the medium term with some form of avator that presents a mixture of live, scheduled shows and non-live shows.

Ultimately, you will switch on the tv to watch only one tv "channel". As an example, the tv will know that you like to watch Coronation Street, EastEnders and football. But on this day both EastEnders and the football are on at the same time. So the tv "channel" presents you with Corrie at 7.30pm, live football at 8pm and Eastenders at 10pm.

To all intents and purposes, you have watched a linear schedule on a linear channel, except its nothing of the kind and I reckon this will happen within the next 10-20 years, if not a lot sooner.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Horizon

.... its because sometimes you are confusing different things, ie using the word streamed, which can have different meanings. When you say streamed, you are thinking of it in on demand terms, I believe. Whereas others here are thinking of it as another way to "broadcast" channels. It can be both and that's one of the things causing confusion. You can have streamed a live linear channel, a non-live linear channel, a live on demand programme and a non-live on demand programme.

From a technical point of view, streaming is basically a way of downloading a little bit of a file, viewing that bit, then downloading the next bit, viewing that and so on. The advantage of streaming for the user is they don't have to wait for the entire film or show to download (which could be a long time on some connections) before they can watch it. Streaming also allows them to watch live TV (which, of course, would never be possible without streaming as you would never be able to download the whole thing). The advantage of streaming for the provider is that the show or film is only ever stored on their own, secure, storage systems. It is never stored on the user's own systems (which may or may not be secure).

Now that's not true in all instances, as some streaming services do allow downloads (Amazon Video, All 4 and iPlayer spring to mind), but that is streaming from a technical point of view.

It's also worth noting that that definition is not tied to any particular technology or platform. All digital TV services do it, regardless of whether they are broadcast via Satellite, Cable, Terrestrial TV or IPTV over the internet. It's also the same definition used in computing. Games, for instance, often don't load entire levels into memory (even with many gigs of RAM, there wouldn't be room for some game levels). They either load a section of a level or map (the process is often hidden from the user by playing a cut scene while the section is loading), or stream sections into memory as and when needed.

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

To the older generation, all this is new and many either find it more difficult to understand or don't really know where to start. However, it will be familiar and much more straight forward to our younger generation as they move into more advanced years.

True, although it's worth noting that some studies have found that the younger generation is increasingly using TVs to watch TV, while using their tablets and phones (which they previously used to watch TV) to do other stuff.

Perhaps you can tell me why you think that the younger generation, as they get older, would want to substitute their world of on demand without ads for the more conventional model of scheduled TV full of irritating commercial breaks in their busy lives? True, some will do this, but I am certain that the majority will not. This is certainly being borne out in my experience, seeing how my daughters' friends watch TV in an entirely different way to your way, Chris.

You are, of course, assuming that the various On Demand services won't insert their own commercial breaks, and stop people watching the stream skipping the ads. Some services already do this (ITV Hub, All 4). Although their CEO said they would never carry ads in this way, your beloved Netflix clarified his comments to say they had no plans to do so at the moment, which implies they are reserving the right to introduce it in the future.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Err,, if you look at his 2nd post onwards, he is actually talking about viewing on demand programmes but based on a linear schedule. Such a "channel" could not be broadcast, so he has been consistent.

He may get confused about whether something is broadcast or not, or whether a programme is live or not, but he has been pretty consistent all along.

Linear programmes aka live shows, will be around probably forever. I don't see live news, football stopping anytime soon. But whether linear tv channels will be around in the years and decades ahead is arguable. Very. All the evidence says they won't.

The only real mistake he made was in his first post in thinking that the BBC was going to be launching some revolutionary new show that would blur the lines between linear tv and on demand. I thought the same as him.

I assumed we would be able to go into iplayer, on demand, and watch Victoria Derbyshire live. That was wrong, but it is clear what he was saying from the very beginning.

I'm on Old Boy's side on this one!

Totally agree, and good post Horizon.........

[OLD BOY]

Thank you, Stuart and Horizon, for explaining the technical differences, these must be the most helpful posts we have seen on here.

As far as Netflix is concerned, Stuart, I don't mind if they include commercials in the future, as long as they always provide a subscription alternative. At least this would ensure that everyone can be included in this digital revolution.

Originally Posted by Horizon

He may get confused about whether something is broadcast or not, or whether a programme is live or not, but he has been pretty consistent all along.

he also interchangeably and utterly wrongly flips between using On Demand and Streaming as if they're the same thing. They're not.

When I invited him to repost his (probably revised) position on the topic using the correct terms he told me no-one but a few awkward types cared about the different meanings.

And yet they clearly greatly affect his central claim.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TVWatcher

he also interchangeably and utterly wrongly flips between using On Demand and Streaming as if they're the same thing. They're not.

When I invited him to repost his (probably revised) position on the topic using the correct terms he told me no-one but a few awkward types cared about the different meanings.

And yet they clearly greatly affect his central claim.

Which I have explained on several occasions. Not everyone is too bothered about these differences because the average punter looks at on demand and they look at streaming and they have the same experience. Most will understand the difference between that and our conventional broadcast channels.

Despite going on and on about these fine differences, why not concentrate on what you know is the suggestion - that our conventional broadcast channels will ultimately die off as analogue has done?

Stuart and Horizon have done a good job at explaining those differences so now we can all understand.

Now let's move on, for pity's sake.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Which I have explained on several occasions. Not everyone is too bothered about these differences because the average punter looks at on demand and they look at streaming and they have the same experience. Most will understand the difference between that and our conventional broadcast channels.

Despite going on and on about these fine differences, why not concentrate on what you know is the suggestion - that our conventional broadcast channels will ultimately die off as analogue has done?

Stuart and Horizon have done a good job at explaining those differences so now we can all understand.

Now let's move on, for pity's sake.

Except that as has been pointed out to you before, BT Sport is a linear, scheduled channel which happens to be streamed on BT TV. BBC One is streamed live via iPlayer.

Both are conventional linear, scheduled channels and can be accessed via conventional DSAT or cable, but both are also streamed. The linear channel is not, and cannot be, on demand. Content from both is, of course, available on demand. But than that's not linear.

Words have meanings. Conversations are easiest when people stick to those meanings.

As for your fall back that traditionally broadcast channels via DTT, DSAT and cable will one day vanish or all move online - why?

I've shown you before how the costs of DTT and DSAT are fixed regardless of the numbers of people viewing - why would the broadcasters move to stream them when it costs more the more people who are viewing?

Why would viewers ditch the shows they already love in favour of something else just because it happens to be on demand?

EastEnders fans will continue watching BBC One for as long as Eastenders is on BBC One, ditto ITV and Corrie. Netflix and Amazon don't have those shows and people like to watch them live.

So what real-world event will make them switch?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TVWatcher

Except that as has been pointed out to you before, BT Sport is a linear, scheduled channel which happens to be streamed on BT TV. BBC One is streamed live via iPlayer.

Both are conventional linear, scheduled channels and can be accessed via conventional DSAT or cable, but both are also streamed. The linear channel is not, and cannot be, on demand. Content from both is, of course, available on demand. But than that's not linear.

Words have meanings. Conversations are easiest when people stick to those meanings.

As for your fall back that traditionally broadcast channels via DTT, DSAT and cable will one day vanish or all move online - why?

I've shown you before how the costs of DTT and DSAT are fixed regardless of the numbers of people viewing - why would the broadcasters move to stream them when it costs more the more people who are viewing?

Why would viewers ditch the shows they already love in favour of something else just because it happens to be on demand?

EastEnders fans will continue watching BBC One for as long as Eastenders is on BBC One, ditto ITV and Corrie. Netflix and Amazon don't have those shows and people like to watch them live.

So what real-world event will make them switch?

Your first two paragraphs show how confusing the technical terms are, but I maintain that the distinction between them for the purposes of my very straight forward premise is irrelevant.

The premise is that those channels set out on the EPG will slowly start to disappear.

I am not sure why you are questioning why broadcasters will change to on demand/streaming services. They are doing it already. This is why a question remains about why they would bother maintaining the conventional channels if they were no longer profitable.