The death of terrestial TV transmission?

[dave walsh]

We are creatures of habit Glynn but I don't think you have a minority view at all [post 18*]. In fact you may be "getting down" with the majority of the viewing public, young and older, whose mindset is often not to even watch on a "set" at all but when they do it's with another intention perhaps. This accounts for the constant "You've seen the best and now you can watch all the rest available on line" announcements/inducements re re "live" broadcasting.

Your's is just a different variation on wanting to do things your own way at your own convenience and why not? Others, like me have just built up a "one at a time" viewing habit over the years because there were no other options available. I record a lot still so I can pick my moment but I'm happy to wait a week for the next episode of something that's really good. The best of both worlds perhaps? It's very likely that these old style viewing habits will quickly disappear world wide but maybe not-less is often more in the end.

That was a good overall summary Tanuki post20* [amongst quite a few others] even though I might not entirely agree with some aspects!

The other side of the coin is that I've read about treatment centres to deal with people who get mentally disorientated after too many 72 hour weekend binges with on-line streamed box sets. It's the old story really. The second pint of beer is never as good as that eagerly anticipated first one

Dave W

[SiriusHardware]

WA: The other thing to consider is streaming vs live

True enough. We watch a reasonable amount of TV mainly at the weekends, so, as a lot of stuff is broadcast during the week, it obviously has to have been recorded. In addition to that, we always record, never watch commercial TV channels live. Even if we are around at the time of the broadcast we will set our box away recording it and then start watching it maybe 25 minutes later so that we can speed through all the adverts. That is our main reason for watching recordings rather than watching live - not necessarily to watch at a time of our choosing, but to skip the bits we don't want to have to sit through.

It seems a strange thing to complain about but the adverts are such terrible dross these days that they are virtually unwatchable / unlistenable - there was a recent thread reminiscing fondly about old advertising campaigns - I can't think of a single current advert that I will remember fondly many years into the future.

I will sometimes notice that such and such a film is starting on whatever channel, a film that I have never seen or not seen for ages, and make a spur of the moment decision to watch it live (or almost live, if there are adverts). We have a large collection of genuinely good films on DVD which, because they are there to watch at any time of our choosing, we never actually get around to watching - because there is no pressure, no deadline to watch them on any given date we often never get around to it, always pushing it back to some date further in the future and instead doing some other thing which does require our immediate attention, whereas with a live broadcast there is an element of 'watch it or don't - make your mind up now'.

[Nuvistor]

[QUOTE=SiriusHardware;1414437]

whereas with a live broadcast there is an element of 'watch it or don't - make your mind up now'.

And possibly many like myself don’t.
I also have never understood the binges of programmes, there are too many other pursuits than sitting in front of the box all day.

Still we are all different and there are plenty choices available both TV and others.

[HamishBoxer]

As long as what the format is it can be recorded, I do not mind, I am allergic to adverts!

[G6Tanuki]

I can't be bothered with recording broadcast-stuff when I can stream it. [as mentioned upthread I've not had any off-air receiving/recording/viewing gear this century].

My ideal TV future is entirely pay-per-view streaming. You want to watch BBC news - that's 1p per minute; The entire Game of Thrones series - that's £50; This afternoon's Rugby, £15 to watch live or £1 to watch it 24 hours later.

[ms660]

I reckon one of these might do it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event

An end to watching screens and listening to transducers.....at least for a while.

Lawrence.

[Refugee]

The Bond movies were begging for a VHS tape every time due to half an hour of adverts and 15 minutes of news in the middle of them.

[G6Tanuki]

I'd happily spring £10 to be able to stream the new Bond movie; it'd cost me around that in Diesel to drive to the local cinema to see it, and watching it at home would mean I don't have to put up with some moron talking/kicking the seat behind me.

[Refugee]

You also don't have to put up with all the rustling noise from popcorn wrappers.

[Pfraser]

Is there much, if any, difference in network security between the terrestrial broadcast system and online? I'm thinking mainly of various hackers:- the comparatively lower-level nuisances which are a constant threat to our PCs etc, plus the more menacing state-sponsored teams who might wish to attack digital infrastructure.

Occasionally, there are reports of undersea data cables being cut. Accidentally, of course. Are these ever a part of domestic online broadcasting?

Then there's always the Sun, as referenced above. And all that space junk...

[Sideband]

I love the fact that iPlayer etc allows me to watch a program when I want to watch it....and I can pause it, run it back to a missed part of dialogue, jump backwards or forwards a couple of episodes (if available of course). No tapes, no storage space....wonderful! I still have a DVD player and am making a collection of 'period' films to watch on the vintage TV's but as for recording stuff off the TV....I don't bother any more.

I was able to find the Disney Channel on my phone the other day and then stream it to the TV....brilliant...HD as well! No aerials required!

[patrickgnl]

Originally Posted by Nuvistor

Is the Freeview platform capable of supporting 4K with the same number channels we have now?

Has for live TV watching, I think there are many who record and watch when it suits, possibly more than we think. I watch little live TV, I will record what I want and use the radio much more than TV.

I don’t think it matters if Freeview is capable of supporting the same number of 4K channels or not, the future is DVB-I. DVB-I allows a uniform method of streaming TV at whatever definition they want selected by a standard Freeview channel number. I know this has existed for some time in one form or another, but DVB-I standardises the approach, and enables channel discovery, by update scan. All of this of course relies on the user having a reliable internet connection.

We are lucky to have an ad free BBC I-Player in the UK, as streaming I suspect will be only way to watch time shifted programming at some point. No doubt ad free will only be possible via a paid service. Discovery & Disney have already followed Amazon and Netflix. Paramount (Channel 5/CBS/viacom) are due to follow. Sky are desperately creating their own content, because HBO/Warner Bros are due to follow suit in the coming couple of years. Paramount and HBO/WB rollout is delayed in the UK because of existing contractural agreements.

Thats the way its going as far as I can see…

[Welsh Anorak]

I'm not surprised to find forum members are ahead of the game when it comes to TV watching - and maybe it's one of the few times we're 'down wiv the kids'!
I think it's all down to being comfortable with technology.
Contrast two of my customers.
I installed a Fire Stick for one (not particularly old) couple who were absolutely amazed they could watch on demand. He's a farmer and it means he doesn't have to come in from working to see relevant farming programmes - he had no idea this was possible.
The second was a lady of 84 who told me that while in hospital she didn't have to miss her favourite soap 'as I could watch it by streaming on my i-Pad!'
The amount of people who have no truck with the internet and computers is shrinking and the audience for live TV (on whatever platform) will shrink in sympathy.

[Heatercathodeshort]

Pictures from the USA appear to show a complete absence of TV aerials. I am led to believe that everything arrives via cable. J.

[John_BS]

It's interesting (and informative) to calculate how many Freeview Gbits pass by each home per day. It's a lot.

John

[paulsherwin]

Cable has certainly had a huge market share in the US since the 70s, for a mixture of technical, regulatory and cultural reasons. Internet streaming is taking over there too though - in fact, most of the streaming providers are American.

[simpsons]

Whilst agreeing with Station X point on the licence fee or it is being replaced by another income stream, streamed subscription TV is a reality and brings with it known issues.

Whilst my family are grown up and look to Prime, Netflix etc. for film and sports entertainment; for a younger family, children's programmes can be a lifesaver but it requires funding. Would we be happy with more commercials directed toward children or having to subscribe to say the Disney channel and trust that they reflect the society we live in?

Such a conundrum applies to adult entertainment and education broadcasts such as the Open University.

At the moment UK terrestrial TV stations must meet the requirements of The Broadcasting Act which, just as Richardgr in Sweeden says and other European countries have in place, puts a minimum standard on broadcasting material and requires broadcasters to include programmes which some may call minority audiences, such as documentaries. In the UK this has led to a vast number of programme-makers commissioned by the likes of Channel 4 and the BBC.

In the UK we now have radio stations and one TV station which combine news with opinions, hosted by celebrities, with material slanted toward one section of society reinforcing the view of the listener but not always challenging it. Fox News in the USA is a well-known example.

Netflix and so on have been very successful and are commissioning films for their audience, but even ITV, with all their resources, have looked to government for funding Drama, I'm thinking of Hollington Drive as an example.

Although we all have a point of view on the choice of programmes available, be careful what you wish for. Lord Reith may have got it right in 1936 but today we live in a totally different world and it is hard to keep up with it.

Technology is only part of the equation.

Chris

[SiriusHardware]

As soon as you have to pay-to-view individual programmes you immediately narrow your choices, as you aren't going to take a chance on something you may or may not like - most likely you'll stick with safe choices, so anything unusual / innovative / not mainstream will not get watched very much. Worse still, it may not even get made in the first place if the provider judges that too few people will pay to watch it.

I quite like the discipline required to watch a broadcast programme, "oh lets get tea ready for Poirot at eight" (all episodes are on my server from the DVD set, no adverts too, but I still prefer "live"). Puts me and SHMBO in sync at least once a day!

Radio is still the best, get_iplayer can retrieve a series for later listening (which I do) but, again, I like the "live" aspect even on 4Extra, "The Destruction Factor, episode three at seven", I will still rather listen to that off air than a recording. The upside of all of this is listening to (watching, maybe) something I wouldn't have chosen, OK maybe only a filler before the wanted prog. but I usually learn something I didn't think I needed to.

Bit of a cross post with SiriusHardware, look at all those BBC2 comedies that had a harsh reception at first, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Red Dwarf, Not the Nine o'Clock News. The list is quite long. The world would be poorer without them.