The future of television

[jfman]

These threads would be much shorter if OB would stop doing that.

I think there's pretty broad agreement on a number of things if he'd just define his terms clearly so we know what he means.

FAST channels are a red herring - the term doesn't add anything meaningful to the discourse at all. A 24 hour a day TV channel (sometimes called a 'linear' channel) is just that whether it broadcasts news, sports, general entertainment, documentaries, or 24 hours a day of Casualty episodes. Being able to do this over IP has reduced the barriers to entry (cost) but it's fundamentally the same thing using a new technology.

There's two (quite interesting) but distinct conversations to be had.

The technologies to deliver television (both linear, channels and on demand). Digital television in the UK will be 30 years old in four years time.

DTT: There's competition for that bandwidth from mobile operators.

Satellite (in the UK): The three satellites broadcasting from 28.2E reach end of life on paper in five years. In practice however, lifespan could go beyond 20 years. Elsewhere in Europe the satellite operator (SES) is commissioning Astra 1P and 1Q - taking their broadcast commitment well into the 2040s across the continent.

Cable: Virgin with long term plans to retire the old network could push an all IP solution over their new full fibre network (when complete).

The second conversation - is how people consume television. This has always been a moving picture (pun intended). VHS in the 80s to PVR products in the early 2000s have always given people the capability to timeshift and watch what they want, when they want, from the previously broadcast content. Sky+ was a gamechanger in this regard with no degradation of quality and the ability to watch one channel while recording another from the subscription channels. Cable had on demand services that were good but hamstrung by weak STBs and interfaces. Yet still watching television, as and when it was broadcast, has remained resilient.

IP creates 'streaming' opportunities for on demand content. It removes the need for additional hardware as with on demand services over cable and to consciously choose to record something from the end user. Despite this streaming services such as Peacock in the US carry around 50 linear channels as well as their on demand library.

Another thing to bear in mind is network resiliency - if everything is delivered through Broadband, and all recordings are in "The Cloud*", what happens when the network goes down?

A prime example was last week - local thunderstorm and lightning strike took out a bunch of cabinets near us, and we had no VM connection to the WWW. With present technology, we could use our existing aerial and digital channels, and the recordings on the V6, if we so wished.

Pretty sure no Broadband providers are going to provide resilience (such as 4G/5G back-up hub) free as part of the PSB remit**…

* "The Cloud" is just someone else’s computer/storage…

**making sure viewers can access a wide range of public service content on a free-to-air basis

This.

BT’s full-fibre offering comes with 4G redundancy (which to my knowledge has never kicked in once in the 2 years we’ve had it) but even if it’s never consuming bandwidth there’s a hardware cost due to the 4G modem which is separate from the Homehub. It is a premium product, and even if it becomes a standard product when they have some newer premium innovation to sell, the one thing it is never likely to be is a free add on to a socially necessary bare bones broadband contract.

[jfman]

While we are in broad agreement something to add is even if you offered 4G back up this would very quickly become overwhelmed in the case of a local issue and even for an issue with a single line relies significantly on the positioning of the device.

The average user, in the average house, with their modem next to their phone socket or ONT that was optimised for where it could be positioned to minimise the work in the house (or a central cupboard probably in a new build) will likely get a data connection to keep them 'online' but not anything necessarily like what would be required for TV continuity of service.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

What was all the schtick about schedulers not being required and criticising lazy viewers just putting up whatever they are being fed if indeed they are a part of the future over IP?

Yes, for our conventional broadcasters.

The FAST channels are showing largely old or at least much cheaper programmes and have a much reduced financial outlay. They can simply upload programmes with ads sprinkled in without any need to keep to schedules.

---------- Post added at 21:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

This, folks, is the sound goalposts make when they’re being forcibly uprooted, dragged down the tunnel and jammed underneath the team bus.

Chris, you are just being deliberately argumentative. I am disappointed with you, really I am.

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:06 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

These threads would be much shorter if OB would stop doing that.

I think there's pretty broad agreement on a number of things if he'd just define his terms clearly so we know what he means.

FAST channels are a red herring - the term doesn't add anything meaningful to the discourse at all. A 24 hour a day TV channel (sometimes called a 'linear' channel) is just that whether it broadcasts news, sports, general entertainment, documentaries, or 24 hours a day of Casualty episodes. Being able to do this over IP has reduced the barriers to entry (cost) but it's fundamentally the same thing using a new technology.

There's two (quite interesting) but distinct conversations to be had.

The technologies to deliver television (both linear, channels and on demand). Digital television in the UK will be 30 years old in four years time.

DTT: There's competition for that bandwidth from mobile operators.

Satellite (in the UK): The three satellites broadcasting from 28.2E reach end of life on paper in five years. In practice however, lifespan could go beyond 20 years. Elsewhere in Europe the satellite operator (SES) is commissioning Astra 1P and 1Q - taking their broadcast commitment well into the 2040s across the continent.

Cable: Virgin with long term plans to retire the old network could push an all IP solution over their new full fibre network (when complete).

The second conversation - is how people consume television. This has always been a moving picture (pun intended). VHS in the 80s to PVR products in the early 2000s have always given people the capability to timeshift and watch what they want, when they want, from the previously broadcast content. Sky+ was a gamechanger in this regard with no degradation of quality and the ability to watch one channel while recording another from the subscription channels. Cable had on demand services that were good but hamstrung by weak STBs and interfaces. Yet still watching television, as and when it was broadcast, has remained resilient.

IP creates 'streaming' opportunities for on demand content. It removes the need for additional hardware as with on demand services over cable and to consciously choose to record something from the end user. Despite this streaming services such as Peacock in the US carry around 50 linear channels as well as their on demand library.

Stop doing what? You (and some others) are deliberately confusing and conflating things. Don’t blame me for that.

I have been very clear, and that’s why I continue to refer to ‘conventional broadcast TV channels’. These are the channels listed on Freeview, plus the Sky satellite channels and their multi-channel packages. Oh, and Virgin Ultra HD.

To cover up the unravelling of your naysaying arguments that they would never disappear in favour of streaming, you are now pushing an argument about the FAST channels, which was never part of my argument.

Frankly, it should be obvious to everyone (who has been paying attention) by now that those ‘conventional broadcast channels’ will not be around much longer unless the government or Ofcom make it a mandatory requirement. Nine years on from my prediction for 2035, we are continuing exponentially to move in that direction.

Who knows where we will end up, but you have my take on it. You can believe what you like.

---------- Post added at 21:22 ---------- Previous post was at 21:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Another thing to bear in mind is network resiliency - if everything is delivered through Broadband, and all recordings are in "The Cloud*", what happens when the network goes down?

A prime example was last week - local thunderstorm and lightning strike took out a bunch of cabinets near us, and we had no VM connection to the WWW. With present technology, we could use our existing aerial and digital channels, and the recordings on the V6, if we so wished.

Pretty sure no Broadband providers are going to provide resilience (such as 4G/5G back-up hub) free as part of the PSB remit**…

* "The Cloud" is just someone else’s computer/storage…

**making sure viewers can access a wide range of public service content on a free-to-air basis

You have a point, but is that something that the broadcasters will be concerned about? If it is their assessment that financially streaming is the way to go, only the government/Ofcom will stand in their way.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

While we are in broad agreement something to add is even if you offered 4G back up this would very quickly become overwhelmed in the case of a local issue and even for an issue with a single line relies significantly on the positioning of the device.

The average user, in the average house, with their modem next to their phone socket or ONT that was optimised for where it could be positioned to minimise the work in the house (or a central cupboard probably in a new build) will likely get a data connection to keep them 'online' but not anything necessarily like what would be required for TV continuity of service.

Ah, yes, I still remember that old argument that we didn’t have enough electricity supply to cope with all this streaming!

Originally Posted by Old Boy

You have a point, but is that something that the broadcasters will be concerned about? If it is their assessment that financially streaming is the way to go, only the government/Ofcom will stand in their way.

Will the broadcasters be concerned that the only things that would stand in their way if they decided streaming is the way to go are

- OFCOM (which is responsible for licensing all UK commercial television services, and who could remove their broadcasting licences)

- HM Government, who write the Laws regarding broadcasting licences

Is that a serious question?

Globally, the internet is on track to consume 20% of all electricity production next year.

https://theconversation.com/the-inte...ainable-160639

Meanwhile the BBC established that per device/hour, streaming consumes twice as much electricity as terrestrial broadcast.

We found that the energy use of streaming video per hour (0.19 kWh/device-hour) is similar to that of satellite (0.16 kWh/device-hour) and cable (0.15 kWh/device-hour); terrestrial television uses less than half of the other platforms (0.06 kWh/device-hour). (Updated and revised figures in bold, June 2021)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2020-0...ming-broadcast

As of 2022 more than a third of UK households were Freeview-only (37%). These homes - representing around 10 million households - are the ones that will be doubling their TV-viewing electricity consumption. Doubling.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ng-households/

So, yes, the power consumption issue hasn’t gone away, but only because as of right now it hasn’t yet become an issue. If terrestrial broadcast TV is switched off, well then, it might be. At present the National Grid is preoccupied with the capacity constraints that are imminent issues, arising from electrification of road transport and home heating.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68601354

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------

you are now pushing an argument about the FAST channels, which was never part of my argument

Your argument was always on thin ice precisely because you were foolish enough to make hard predictions about the future, when anyone with an ounce of wisdom knows to expect the unexpected. FAST channels are - more or less - unexpected, though as more people take an interest in IP-delivered TV it maybe ought to have been obvious that broadcasters with an established business model and an eye for reduced costs would take an interest.

I understand why you’d like us to ignore them, as they are the final nail in the coffin for your predictions. Unlucky for you.

[jfman]

OB inventing an argument I didn’t actually make and still coming up wrong on power consumption. I was referring to backup bandwidth over 4G which is limited. As any O2 user impacted by network congestion can testify.

Originally Posted by jfman

OB inventing an argument I didn’t actually make and still coming up wrong on power consumption. I was referring to backup bandwidth over 4G which is limited. As any O2 user impacted by network congestion can testify.

His comment on power consumption refers back to a point I made in some version or other of this discussion some years ago now. Like FAST TV, it baked OB’s noodle because he hadn’t considered it and didn’t have any way to counter it, so he adopted his usual tactic of sneering at it and hoping it would just go away. Which obviously it won’t.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your argument was always on thin ice precisely because you were foolish enough to make hard predictions about the future, when anyone with an ounce of wisdom knows to expect the unexpected. FAST channels are - more or less - unexpected, though as more people take an interest in IP-delivered TV it maybe ought to have been obvious that broadcasters with an established business model and an eye for reduced costs would take an interest.

I understand why you’d like us to ignore them, as they are the final nail in the coffin for your predictions. Unlucky for you.

I’m not ignoring the FAST channels. I am simply saying that I was not referring to the FAST channels when I made my prediction. Ever since I realised the level of pedantry my detractors were using to prove me wrong, I have been careful to clarify time and again that I was referring our ‘traditional broadcast channels’. You know that full well.

My prediction is far from unravelling, but those who argued that streaming would never take over are very reluctant to admit that their predictions are indeed unravelling.

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

OB inventing an argument I didn’t actually make and still coming up wrong on power consumption. I was referring to backup bandwidth over 4G which is limited. As any O2 user impacted by network congestion can testify.

I am well aware that the argument about not being enough power supply was Chris’s. I didn’t say it was yours.

I am also not saying that Chris is wrong about the shortfall in electricity generation. I am simply pointing out that problems such as these will be overcome.

[jfman]

What's the difference between a "traditional" channel and a FAST channel?

Would ITV1 over IP be FAST? If not, why not?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

His comment on power consumption refers back to a point I made in some version or other of this discussion some years ago now. Like FAST TV, it baked OB’s noodle because he hadn’t considered it and didn’t have any way to counter it, so he adopted his usual tactic of sneering at it and hoping it would just go away. Which obviously it won’t.

More assumptions that are not true. You’re starting to sound desperate now, Chris.

Incidentally, although I have a personal disdain for the FAST channels, that’s simply due to the fact that they make for even more dumbed-down viewing. If people want to watch them, fine - it’s no skin off my nose.

As for the electricity supply, that’s your argument, not mine, and it’s based on that inexplicable attitude that the pair of you seem to have that nothing much will change from where we stand now.

If you haven’t noticed channels starting to disappear, like the Disney Channel, FX and so on, and the redirection of original material to the streamers, then you haven’t been paying attention. We’re not even half way into my prediction period yet and everything is pointing to what I said more or less coming true.

Oh, and don’t forget that even the BBC is planning for an all-streaming future within the next 10 years. That’s something that I note you are trying hard to ignore.

---------- Post added at 13:17 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

What's the difference between a "traditional" channel and a FAST channel?

Would ITV1 over IP be FAST? If not, why not?

Now you are being ridiculous. You know very well what a FAST channel is, and that my belief is that ITV1, 2, 3 and 4 will just morph into ITVX. If the government allows them to do so, of course.

[RichardCoulter]

Actually, the business world have been told by the CEO of Disney that they 'Invested too much in streaming'.

I also recently read a report that said that some companies were now regretting pulling their channels off linear TV platforms in order to promote their new streaming services. The regular guaranteed income from pay TV operators was something that they missed.

https://www.investopedia.com/disney-...70#:~:text=The CEO said that "spending,support its path to profitability.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Now you are being ridiculous. You know very well what a FAST channel is, and that my belief is that ITV1, 2, 3 and 4 will just morph into ITVX. If the government allows them to do so, of course.

If the Government does not allow them to do so, or if the most successful free to air commercial broadcaster in this country decides to do so themselves, would it be a FAST channel?

You claim I know what it is - I’ll be honest with you I find the concept so ill defined I am seeking clarification on it. Whether you would want ITV1 to continue as a linear channel over IP is irrelevant to my question.

What characteristics of a FAST channel would be missing if it was not?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Will the broadcasters be concerned that the only things that would stand in their way if they decided streaming is the way to go are

- OFCOM (which is responsible for licensing all UK commercial television services, and who could remove their broadcasting licences)

- HM Government, who write the Laws regarding broadcasting licences

Is that a serious question?

As I said, retiring the channels to show all programmes on demand/live streaming can’t happen if the government or Ofcom stepped in. But would they?

---------- Post added at 16:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:55 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

If the Government does not allow them to do so, or if the most successful free to air commercial broadcaster in this country decides to do so themselves, would it be a FAST channel?

You claim I know what it is - I’ll be honest with you I find the concept so ill defined I am seeking clarification on it. Whether you would want ITV1 to continue as a linear channel over IP is irrelevant to my question.

What characteristics of a FAST channel would be missing if it was not?

I guess it would be a FAST channel in those circumstances. It would also be far superior to the present offering, given the limited choice of programmes currently available on the present crop of FAST channels.

I suppose it is also possible that in such a scenario, the former broadcast channels may offer a much more limited choice than would be available on their streamers both to encourage the audience to switch to that method of viewing in order to comply with such a dictat from the government or the regulators.

When I look at Pluto now, it seems to me that the on demand content is more prominent than before - previously, it was the channels that our eyes were drawn to. This may possibly be an indication that the on demand part of the streamer is more popular, but I haven’t seen any audience figures to confirm that.