There’s an interesting report just published here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly reproduce here.
the whole report is really just a comparison of terrestrial broadcasting
and Internet channels. And they seem to think that those of us relying mostly on terrestrial broadcasting are luddites or dinosaurs in the
twilight of our lives.
On 08/11/2024 18:59, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
Theres an interesting report just published here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
Its 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly
reproduce
here.
What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
<quote>
Audience Analysis
In 2023, 87% of UK households had an internet-enabled primary TV and approximately 18% used the internet exclusively as their primary way to
watch
television. 17% of UK households were dependent on digital terrestrial television for their TV viewing.
# Homes that were dependent on digital terrestrial television included
13,000
homes in areas without fixed-line broadband, 1.7 million homes without broadband access for reasons of affordability or choice, 2.2 million
homes with
broadband where the TV is unconnected to the internet and 0.7 million
with an
internet-connected TV whose viewing is more than 80% linear.
# In 2023, 90% of those without a broadband connection were aged over
55. They
were more likely to identify as female and to live on their own. 80% of
those with
no broadband connection were within the C2DE socioeconomic bands. They
were also more likely to live in the north of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and have a disability.
# In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services. Internet delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of households at 71% of homes. A small minority 5% of homes will remain wholly reliant on digital terrestrial television broadcast."
</quote>
On the other hand the technology of television is too confusing for
some, and looks like telephone landlines is heading the same way,
equally as unfathomable as DAB and mobile phones for the same people.
On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
There’s an interesting report just published here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly
reproduce
here.
What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
On Sat, 09 Nov 24 14:00:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <lp9603F549eU1@mid.individual.net>, Adrian Caspersz
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 08/11/2024 18:59, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
Theres an interesting report just published here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
Its 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly
reproduce here.
What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
<quote>
Audience Analysis In 2023, 87% of UK households had an
internet-enabled primary TV and approximately 18% used the internet
exclusively as their primary way to watch television. 17% of UK
households were dependent on digital terrestrial television for their
TV viewing.
# Homes that were dependent on digital terrestrial television included
13,000 homes in areas without fixed-line broadband, 1.7 million homes
without broadband access for reasons of affordability or choice, 2.2
million homes with broadband where the TV is unconnected to the
internet and 0.7 million with an internet-connected TV whose viewing
is more than 80% linear.
# In 2023, 90% of those without a broadband connection were aged over
55. They were more likely to identify as female and to live on their
own. 80% of those with no broadband connection were within the C2DE
socioeconomic bands. They were also more likely to live in the north
of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and have a disability.
# In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services.
Internet delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of
households at 71% of homes. A small minority 5% of homes will
remain wholly reliant on digital terrestrial television broadcast."
</quote>
On the other hand the technology of television is too confusing for
some, and looks like telephone landlines is heading the same way,
equally as unfathomable as DAB and mobile phones for the same people.
as was FM some years ago. When Radio 3 lost medium wave, people were >concened about the new-fangled FM - it had only been there for about 40 >years.
Was the principal concern not about Test Match Special?
In article <lp9603F549eU1@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 08/11/2024 18:59, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/11/2024 14:31, Tweed wrote:
Theres an interesting report just published here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
Its 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly
reproduce
here.
What does it say? Why isn't there an abstract?
<quote>
Audience Analysis
In 2023, 87% of UK households had an internet-enabled primary TV and
approximately 18% used the internet exclusively as their primary way to
watch
television. 17% of UK households were dependent on digital terrestrial
television for their TV viewing.
# Homes that were dependent on digital terrestrial television included
13,000
homes in areas without fixed-line broadband, 1.7 million homes without
broadband access for reasons of affordability or choice, 2.2 million
homes with
broadband where the TV is unconnected to the internet and 0.7 million
with an
internet-connected TV whose viewing is more than 80% linear.
# In 2023, 90% of those without a broadband connection were aged over
55. They
were more likely to identify as female and to live on their own. 80% of
those with
no broadband connection were within the C2DE socioeconomic bands. They
were also more likely to live in the north of England, Wales, Scotland and >> Northern Ireland and have a disability.
# In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services. Internet >> delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of households at 71% >> of homes. A small minority 5% of homes will remain wholly reliant on
digital terrestrial television broadcast."
</quote>
On the other hand the technology of television is too confusing for
some, and looks like telephone landlines is heading the same way,
equally as unfathomable as DAB and mobile phones for the same people.
as was FM some years ago. When Radio 3 lost medium wave, people were
concened about the new-fangled FM - it had only been there for about 40 >years.
● In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services. Internet delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of
households at 71% of homes. A small minority – 5% of homes – will
remain wholly reliant on digital terrestrial television broadcast."
Nowhere could I find any coverage of one of the most
off-putting features of Internet channels (iPlayer, My5,
YouTube, etc.) - the user interface on all devices that
I know about is simply awful: very laggy pause button, >
very limited ability to rewind or fast-forward, and
usually no ability to skip adverts.
On 09.11.2024 um 13:22 Uhr Adrian Caspersz wrote:
● In 2040, 95% of UK homes will use internet-delivered TV services. Internet delivery-only homes will represent the largest segment of households at 71% of homes. A small minority – 5% of homes – will remain wholly reliant on digital terrestrial television broadcast."
I have some doubt that terrestrial TV signals will still exist then in
the way they exist nowadays. It will be rather expensive to provide
them for a low amount of users and I assume they will be switched off
and people have to use internet.
In CATV networks, some operators switched off most channels and
migrated people to IPTV because it needs less bandwidth, which can be
used for internet access.
And you're not just limited to watching TV. A standard file manager
available from the Amazon appstore (i.e. nothing unofficial like
sideloading necessary) enables me to browse files on my PC over the
local network, so I can look at my family photos on the big screen
from the comfort of my sofa.
I think the biggest piece of work is #3 - a good number of people just want IPTV to work like broadcast with a bunch of channels accessed by number. As soon as you start dragging in 'apps' with menus and stuff you've lost them.
1. Everyone gets fibre
2. People on low incomes get 'free broadband' ( (c) J.Corbyn),
maybe as part of their licence fee. Make it a regulatory condition for big ISPs to offer that service (after all they did get a big chunk of public money for their fibre installs)
3. Some kind of Freeview box that uses the broadband to offer iPlayer/etc as well as live TV streams. Include it as part of the 'free broadband' offer, and put it on general sale for everyone else.
4. Continue to support the usual IPTV platforms (Android/Apple TV etc) as first class citizens (yes BBC, subtitles on Apple TV are non-negotiable).
5. Decommission the DVB-T and DVB-S networks
I think the biggest piece of work is #3 - a good number of people just want IPTV to work like broadcast with a bunch of channels accessed by number. As soon as you start dragging in 'apps' with menus and stuff you've lost them.
(Probably the other issue with this is that broadcasters are desperate to have their walled gardens - forced account logins, not supporting platforms because they're pushing their own, etc. They seem to forget that watching
TV used to be as simple as 1, 2, 3)
Theo
In article <b721jjlssbc1h3dn0oc56pg722is1uclbk@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
And you're not just limited to watching TV. A standard file manager available from the Amazon appstore (i.e. nothing unofficial like sideloading necessary) enables me to browse files on my PC over the
local network, so I can look at my family photos on the big screen
from the comfort of my sofa.
I didn't know about this and so went to have a look for our 4K Amazon
Fire Stick.
I found ES Fie Explorer which it said was free or to quote Amazon -
"you own it".
So I decided to go for it and have a play. At the last minute it
tells you there is a 1 week's free trial then it's £7.78 per month.
Surely no one would pay that would that would they? I backed out
sharpish.
Why should everyone get free broadband?
They do not get free electricity, water, gas etc etc. Surely they are
more important. The Left will portray it as being essential so they
access lots of highly education stuff when we all know it will be used
mainly to watch sport and porn.
They keep pushing Freely in TV adverts as just needing a WiFi connection
but do not seem to mention that the WiFi needs a connection to broadband.
I think there's a case to be made for:[...]
1. Everyone gets fibre
2. People on low incomes get 'free broadband' ( (c) J.Corbyn),
maybe as part of their licence fee. Make it a regulatory condition for big >ISPs to offer that service (after all they did get a big chunk of public >money for their fibre installs)
3. Some kind of Freeview box that uses the broadband to offer iPlayer/etc as >well as live TV streams. Include it as part of the 'free broadband' offer, >and put it on general sale for everyone else.
In article <b721jjlssbc1h3dn0oc56pg722is1uclbk@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
And you're not just limited to watching TV. A standard file manager
available from the Amazon appstore (i.e. nothing unofficial like
sideloading necessary) enables me to browse files on my PC over the
local network, so I can look at my family photos on the big screen
from the comfort of my sofa.
I didn't know about this and so went to have a look for our 4K Amazon
Fire Stick.
I found ES Fie Explorer which it said was free or to quote Amazon -
"you own it".
So I decided to go for it and have a play. At the last minute it
tells you there is a 1 week's free trial then it's 7.78 per month.
Surely no one would pay that would that would they? I backed out
sharpish.
Bob.
We use these Internet channels when necessary, but normally rely on recording the programmes we want to watch on our own digital video recorder and then play them back at a time suitable for us. The play-back allows us to fast-forward through ads andtrailers, to pause instantly, and rewind or space forwards at any speed between 2x and 64x if we want to. All this seems much better than any Internet-based system. It may be that the software will improve and latency may go down gradually, but pausing
I've just checked. The program I use is called 'Xplore' and doesn't
cost me anything extra.
I don't know how much an Amazon stick will allow you to do without
a Prime subscription because I was already subscribed to Prime
before I got my first streaming device (which was a PC running
Windows 7) but I think Xplore is separate from Amazon though it's
in their appstore.
Not everyone, just those on low incomes. They currently pay a licence fee
of ~£15pm to watch TV. Give them ~20Mbps broadband included in that package.
Then you can turn off the terrestrial transmitters.
My wife does have an Amazon prime subscription and I've just had
another look. No Xplore in my available apps I'm disappointed to say.
It does have VLC and I do have that installed.
On 10/11/2024 14:22, Theo wrote:
Not everyone, just those on low incomes. They currently pay a licence fee of ~£15pm to watch TV. Give them ~20Mbps broadband included in that package.
Then you can turn off the terrestrial transmitters.
So why not free electricity, water, gas etc? Surely they are more
important.
Clive Page wrote:
We use these Internet channels when necessary, but normally rely on >>recording the programmes we want to watch on our own digital video
recorder and then play them back at a time suitable for us. The
play-back allows us to fast-forward through ads and trailers, to pause >>instantly, and rewind or space forwards at any speed between 2x and 64x
if we want to. All this seems much better than any Internet-based
system. It may be that the software will improve and latency may go
down gradually, but pausing an Internet stream is bound to be less >>satisfactory as it essentially involves sending a command to a remote >>server.
We do much the same. My guess is that many of the "broadcasters" would
far prefer to have us all restricted to viewing online, on demand, with
no ability to record and skip the adverts.
When I had to replace my PVR recently, it was quite clear that this is
now becoming a niche product, with few options available.
Chris
On 10 Nov 2024 13:13:44 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
I think there's a case to be made for:
1. Everyone gets fibre[...]
2. People on low incomes get 'free broadband' ( (c) J.Corbyn),
maybe as part of their licence fee. Make it a regulatory condition for big >ISPs to offer that service (after all they did get a big chunk of public >money for their fibre installs)
3. Some kind of Freeview box that uses the broadband to offer iPlayer/etc as >well as live TV streams. Include it as part of the 'free broadband' offer, >and put it on general sale for everyone else.
1. Yes, fibre will eventually spread everywhere, just like any other
vital service. It'll take time, but it will happen.
2. Licence fee? Really? Its days are numbered already. And why should
anyone have their internet free? Maybe it could be offered with
different service levels at different prices, different video
resolutions for example, just as the likes of Netflix already do.
3. What's the point of 'live' streams, which only enable us to watch programmes according to somebody else's broadcast timetable, when
streaming gives us the means to watch programmes whenever we want? We
don't even need to record them ourslves. Why would we want to go back
to the dark ages when we had to be in when our programme was on?
Some freeview boxes already include some internet streaming services,
but dedicated streaming devices do it better. It may take a few
decades but eventually there will be no point in Freeview.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
Why should everyone get free broadband?
Not everyone, just those on low incomes. They currently pay a
licence fee of ~15pm to watch TV. Give them ~20Mbps broadband
included in that package. Then you can turn off the terrestrial
transmitters.
The point about 'free' is that people already pay a licence fee. For those who don't have broadband give them some basic level of internet and you can turn off the DTT transmitters and give them an internet freeview-style box. Otherwise you have to keep them running much longer, because people won't want their DTT service turned off without an alternative.
Why not scrap the absurd and outdated licence fee then people would have
£15 ppm towards getting their own Broadband if they want and no state
hand outs generating yet another expense for the tax payer.
How would the BBC be funded? Out of general taxation? So the taxpayer
would still be paying. The other alternatives would be subscription or advertising.
The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does have a greater up time. However we do need to consider where things will be in ten years time. I’ve had full fibre broadband via CityFibre and IDNet for a shade over a year now. It has never suffered any downtime so far.
Tweed wrote:
The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does have a greater up time. However we do need to consider where things will be in ten years time. I’ve had full fibre broadband via CityFibre and IDNet for a shade over a year now. It has never suffered any downtime so far.
Lack of bandwidth in the last mile is not the issue I have experienced,
it's the upstream infrastructure that suffers during "mass events" as I mentioned.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:24:57 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:
When I had to replace my PVR recently, it was quite clear that this is
now becoming a niche product, with few options available.
For my simple needs I use the computer browser with online iPlayer and
copy the screen from the 55" tv to make the video file using an MP4 codec.
I reduce the window size, so the file isn't too large. My screen capture >application of choice is oCam.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:51:18 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:
Why not scrap the absurd and outdated licence fee then people
would have 15 ppm towards getting their own Broadband if they
want and no state hand outs generating yet another expense for
the tax payer.
How would the BBC be funded? Out of general taxation? So the
taxpayer would still be paying. The other alternatives would be
subscription or advertising.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:51:18 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:
Why not scrap the absurd and outdated licence fee then people would have
15 ppm towards getting their own Broadband if they want and no state
hand outs generating yet another expense for the tax payer.
How would the BBC be funded?
Out of general taxation? So the taxpayer
would still be paying.
The other alternatives would be subscription or
advertising.
I have a fast broadband connection but DTT is more reliable.
That's not our problem. It should be up to the BBC to earn its keep on
the basis of what it produces and to work out its own finances, just
like any other business. It's not the 1950s and the BBC isn't special
any more.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tweed wrote:
The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does have a greater up time. However we do need to consider where things will be in ten
years time. Iâ??ve had full fibre broadband via CityFibre and IDNet for a
shade over a year now. It has never suffered any downtime so far.
Lack of bandwidth in the last mile is not the issue I have experienced, it's the upstream infrastructure that suffers during "mass events" as I mentioned.
Should we be considering at least one type of ultra-reliable delivery
and reception system that isn't liable to disruption in the event of hostilities? The problem is that if nobody uses it in peacetime, they
won't have it when they need it.
I have a fast broadband connection but DTT is more reliable.
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 12:05:18 +0000, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
Nowhere could I find any coverage of one of the most
off-putting features of Internet channels (iPlayer, My5,
YouTube, etc.) - the user interface on all devices that
I know about is simply awful: very laggy pause button, >
very limited ability to rewind or fast-forward, and
usually no ability to skip adverts.
If this is your experience you're using the wrong equipment. The
so-called 'smart' features built into most TV sets that I've seen do
indeed have very sluggish interfaces, but separate streaming devices
designed for the purpose are much better. This is probably because,
being cheaper than TV sets, they get replaced more frequently so in
most cases will have more up to date software.
Just checked. Xplore *is* in Tanya's list of files. You'll find it
easier to navigate Downloader if you connect a bluetooth mouse,
because sterering the mouse cursor around with the normal remote
control is a bit tricky, but it can be done.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tweed wrote:
The issue of reliability was raised in the report and yes DTT does
have a greater up time. However we do need to consider where things will be in ten years time. Iâ??ve had full fibre broadband via CityFibre and IDNet for a shade over a year now. It has never
suffered any downtime so far.
Lack of bandwidth in the last mile is not the issue I have
experienced, it's the upstream infrastructure that suffers during
"mass events" as I mentioned.
Should we be considering at least one type of ultra-reliable delivery
and reception system that isn't liable to disruption in the event of hostilities? The problem is that if nobody uses it in peacetime, they won't have it when they need it.
That probably depends on what 'hostilities' means. If it's rockets or missiles it's not hard to take out the TV transmitter sites. If it's a cyberattack it could take out servers. The fibre in the ground is likely to be fairly resilient but the datacentres serving up the content may be
missile targets. If you lose power then everything suffers.
OTOH the internet 'routes around damage' and last-mile satellite internet delivery exists. If one web site is down there are others.
It doesn't seem there's an obvious best option but perhaps someone should
ask the Ukrainians how they do it?
On 11/11/2024 12:41, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Dispersed medium wave transmitters with their own generators or Raynet
QRP and Morse?
I am sure the Royal Signals must have some sort of updated version of
the 'mobile chip shop van'.
Dispersed medium wave transmitters with their own generators or Raynet
QRP and Morse?
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
That probably depends on what 'hostilities' means. If it's rockets or missiles it's not hard to take out the TV transmitter sites. If it's a cyberattack it could take out servers. The fibre in the ground is likely to
be fairly resilient but the datacentres serving up the content may be missile targets. If you lose power then everything suffers.
Dispersed medium wave transmitters with their own generators or Raynet
QRP and Morse?
Raynet is just radio hams playing at being an emergency service. They aren't, and when there are actual emergencies they seem to be of minimal
use. For one thing, there are not enough of them for one to already be in place in an affected area (eg a village cut off by floods).
You can only have a useful emergency network using the people and kit you >have in place, and the best kit is that which is well maintained because
it's already in day to day use.
However, after half an hour of use it gave me the choice of 'buy us a
drink or watch an advert for the next half hour of use'.
On 11/11/2024 10:05, Roderick Stewart wrote:
That's not our problem. It should be up to the BBC to earn its keep on
the basis of what it produces and to work out its own finances, just
like any other business. It's not the 1950s and the BBC isn't special
any more.
So just Coronation Street, Love Island and Britain's Got Talent on all
day with at least 30 mins of adverts per hour?
Yes, it may be that newer devices have better and faster interfaces, maybe I should try one.
But do any of them allow you to fast-forward or otherwise skip adverts?
That's a huge advantage of recording programmes on my own video recorder.
Yes, I remember editing out the advert breaks or skipping through
them, and yes it is an advantage, but I also find it an advantage not
to have to record the programmes myself in the first place.
On 11/11/2024 16:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Yes, I remember editing out the advert breaks or skipping through
them, and yes it is an advantage, but I also find it an advantage not
to have to record the programmes myself in the first place.
Well I don't edit them out, just skip them at 16x or faster when
watching.
There’s an interesting report just published here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly reproduce here.
There’s an interesting report just published here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution
It’s 200 pages and even the introduction is too long to sensibly reproduce here.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 158:17:33 |
| Calls: | 10,384 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,482 |