When will scheduled broadcast TV become obsolete?

[GusB]

The turning point will come when even the most rural of places has broadband capable of reliably streaming in HD. We're not there yet.

I'm glad that you mentioned this. It's easy to advocate a switch to everything online when you have a nice superfast broadband connection, but there are still many places in the UK that don't have that luxury necessity. You don't even have to go to the farthest-flung corners of the country to see this in action; you only have to travel a few miles outside a major population centre to find that the infrastructure is poor. I'm relatively lucky in that I'm not far from my local telephone exchange, but a friend of mine who lived on a farm a couple of miles away had a problem with getting a very basic broadband connection. Until that problem is addressed, any suggestion that TV viewing should be online only is ridiculous.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'm glad that you mentioned this. It's easy to advocate a switch to everything online when you have a nice superfast broadband connection, but there are still many places in the UK that don't have that luxury necessity. You don't even have to go to the farthest-flung corners of the country to see this in action; you only have to travel a few miles outside a major population centre to find that the infrastructure is poor. I'm relatively lucky in that I'm not far from my local telephone exchange, but a friend of mine who lived on a farm a couple of miles away had a problem with getting a very basic broadband connection. Until that problem is addressed, any suggestion that TV viewing should be online only is ridiculous.

Trouble is, how long will the non-public service* broadcasters find it worthwhile to serve the areas without decent Internet access?

* All except BBC, ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

 

[GusB]

Trouble is, how long will the non-public service* broadcasters find it worthwhile to serve the areas without decent Internet access?

* All except BBC, ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

In my own opinion, their loss wouldn't be that great! I'd drop Channel 5 from your list too.

 

[Dai Corner]

In my own opinion, their loss wouldn't be that great! I'd drop Channel 5 from your list too.

Legally speaking, Channel 5 are a public service broadcaster, obliging them to have a News programme but entitling them to a prominent position in the EPGs.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think the internet has a while to go yet. The internet is not as reliable as over the air TV in Croydon yet so I am not enthusiastic about streaming. This also relies on a lot of older and poorer people paying £20 + phone line (£33 in my case) per month for an internet connection.

 

[dosxuk]

Indeed.

I suspect it's becoming more efficient to use the bandwidth for tv-on-demand via the mobile networks than broadcast.

It's not, by a long way. Despite some early discussions, pretty much every viewer online has it's own dedicated bandwidth and server resources used to deliver that stream, with the corresponding use of power and equipment.

In comparison, a terrestrial broadcast uses one source and one set of bandwidth regardless of the numbers of viewers, be that zero (*cough* GB News), or several million watching strictly.

Over the air bandwidth is a finite resource. It's worth remembering that if everyone on your local 4G cell decided to move to only watching on-demand over 4G, none of you would have much bandwidth to do so with. People going "ah, but I get 250meg on 5g" need to remember they are sharing that with all the other nearby 5g users, the system relies on most people not doing bandwidth heavy stuff, like video streaming, to advertise those speeds.

 

[Howardh]

I think the internet has a while to go yet. The internet is not as reliable as over the air TV in Croydon yet so I am not enthusiastic about streaming. This also relies on a lot of older and poorer people paying £20 + phone line (£33 in my case) per month for an internet connection.

Is that down to your supplier though? I won't name my provider (I would if they were appalling!) but have to say their speed, price and reliability is spot-on, only had two drop-outs this year as far as I can recall.

I would imagine somewhere like Croydon isn't out in the sticks so no excuses there for not providing a service where 4k streaming is the norm.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Is that down to your supplier though? I won't name my provider (I would if they were appalling!) but have to say their speed, price and reliability is spot-on, only had two drop-outs this year as far as I can recall.

I would imagine somewhere like Croydon isn't out in the sticks so no excuses there for not providing a service where 4k streaming is the norm.

Apart from a few down-times I think it is down to how many people are chasing the band width. Certainly applies in our household but also outside. Have also wondered if the server right at the other end is overloaded.

An over the air signal is not degraded by how many people are receiving it. The whole of the UK could be watching Strictly Come Dancing on terrestrial / sky but it will not affect the speed. Imagine that over the internet !.

 

[adc82140]

Live events and traditional channels can be streamed using multicast technology. I think the BT and Sky Streaming services are delivered in this way, for example.

 

[dosxuk]

Live events and traditional channels can be streamed using multicast technology. I think the BT and Sky Streaming services are delivered in this way, for example.

They can be, but the general internet is not well equipped for large scale multicasting. BT do use it for their IP TV product, but only when accessed over their own network. I don't believe Sky are currently using multicasting, but have experimented with doing it the same as BT - multicast over their own network, unicast over the public internet.

 

[AM9]

They can be, but the general internet is not well equipped for large scale multicasting. BT do use it for their IP TV product, but only when accessed over their own network. I don't believe Sky are currently using multicasting, but have experimented with doing it the same as BT - multicast over their own network, unicast over the public internet.

Just because the Uk network isn't equipped for it now doesn't mean that it couldn't be soon enough. Multicasting technology is established and if there was a need or desire to put in into widespread service, there's no reaon why it couldn't be, - especially if the costs of both real-time RF bandwidth and transmitter equipment would be removed.

 

[Ediswan]

Just because the Uk network isn't equipped for it now doesn't mean that it couldn't be soon enough. Multicasting technology is established and if there was a need or desire to put in into widespread service, there's no reaon why it couldn't be, - especially if the costs of both real-time RF bandwidth and transmitter equipment would be removed.

Multicast can be a b****r to get working properly, even on a relatively simple building/campus private network. I have seen reputable network integrators struggle with it. The protocols are defined and supported, but very few people know how to configure the network equipment and debug problems.

The chances of multicast becoming widely supported as a reliable service over the open IPv4 internet seem slim. IPv6 mght be more practical, but ISP support for IPv6 remains patchy.

 

[Phil56]

Considering we still have analogue radio, years & years after the supposed "switchover" to digital, I think we're many years away from terrestrial TV being switched off. The proposed switchover of the analogue telephones needs to happen first, and that's almost certainly going to get delayed given the sheer number of people who don't currently have decent broadband to their homes. Many people will just use a mobile phone instead, which is the alternative for those without broadband capability to their homes. Let's see how that changeover goes first, i.e. if it happens at all, how long it takes, how much it costs, etc., as the first step which hopefully will get a lot more homes connected to decent broadband. It wouldn't surprise me if we still have terrestrial TV for another decade or two.

 

[Howardh]

Considering we still have analogue radio, years & years after the supposed "switchover" to digital, I think we're many years away from terrestrial TV being switched off. The proposed switchover of the analogue telephones needs to happen first, and that's almost certainly going to get delayed given the sheer number of people who don't currently have decent broadband to their homes. Many people will just use a mobile phone instead, which is the alternative for those without broadband capability to their homes. Let's see how that changeover goes first, i.e. if it happens at all, how long it takes, how much it costs, etc., as the first step which hopefully will get a lot more homes connected to decent broadband. It wouldn't surprise me if we still have terrestrial TV for another decade or two.

What will determine how soon digital TV gets switched off will be if someone is prepared to pay big money for the "bandwidth" - don't know the proper term

But it's something like BBC news can't now be shown in HD on Freeview as the bandwidth has been shortened for other stuff.

A techie will put me right!

 

[Ediswan]

What will determine how soon digital TV gets switched off will be if someone is prepared to pay big money for the "bandwidth" - don't know the proper term

But it's something like BBC news can't now be shown in HD on Freeview as the bandwidth has been shortened for other stuff.

A techie will put me right!

'Bandwidth' is fine. The 'other stuff' is 5G. If you want to dig deeper, the magic search term is 'COM7'.

 

[Dai Corner]

What will determine how soon digital TV gets switched off will be if someone is prepared to pay big money for the "bandwidth" - don't know the proper term

'Frequency spectrum'.

Big money = more than the broadcasters will (but the Government ultimately decides who gets to use the spectrum, what for and how much to charge).

 

[AM9]

'Frequency spectrum'.

Big money = more than the broadcasters will (but the Government ultimately decides who gets to use the spectrum, what for and how much to charge).

This government sems to want the BBC to shrink to a minimum, (although with Dorries unlikely to be of any importance in DCMS, it may stabilise for a while). So the combined effect of reducing licence funds, and handing a larger slice of the TV UHF channels over to other comms bidders, the squeeze on the five main national broacasters my result in offloading linear (digital) channels to pseudo-linear channels by means of multicasting. Setting that up on a national basis would certainly ease the internet playout and backbone bandwidth required compared with multiple iplayer viewing of the same programme.

 

[wilbers]

I was going to comment on this thread that is now wrong - that is the next, next Dr Who.

The new Dr Who is...

...a bit on the young side. (or at least looks it) He's 29 and Scottish. I'm a little surprised by the casting but maybe its another attempt at bringing Dr Who to the masses. IMDB page link HERE Ncuti Gatwa is an actor, known for Sex Education (2019), Doctor Who (2005) and The Last Letter...

www.railforums.co.uk

Wonder what viewing figures this regeneration episode got. Maybe another example of something best watched live as its broadcast.

 

[Ediswan]

Just because the Uk network isn't equipped for it now doesn't mean that it couldn't be soon enough. Multicasting technology is established and if there was a need or desire to put in into widespread service, there's no reaon why it couldn't be, - especially if the costs of both real-time RF bandwidth and transmitter equipment would be removed.

I thought a bit more on that aspect. My understanding of how a mobile data connection works is that a tunnel is formed between the local device and the APN*. All internet traffic then goes through that tunnel. If an APN has ten devices all connected via the same cell, that is seen by the APN as ten separate connections. If those devices all asked for the same multicast stream, it would need to be sent separately through each tunnel. There would be no substantial saving in RF bandwidth over unicast.

* APN - Access Point Name, your mobile data provider.

 

[AM9]

I thought a bit more on that aspect. My understanding of how a mobile data connection works is that a tunnel is formed between the local device and the APN*. All internet traffic then goes through that tunnel. If an APN has ten devices all connected via the same cell, that is seen by the APN as ten separate connections. If those devices all asked for the same multicast stream, it would need to be sent separately through each tunnel. There would be no substantial saving in RF bandwidth over unicast.

* APN - Access Point Name, your mobile data provider.

I was considering using multicast transmission of TV to deliver programme streams to fixed internet receivers instead of over UHF (or sattelite) RF broadcasting. Would it be possible to provide multiple access points to receivers downstream to give simultaneous reception? If so then the backbone path would be a single stream that is split as it is distributed down to receiver access (i.e. domestic broadband connections). Just like current broadcasts, you would need to connect at the start time of the programme, - else there would be the current fall-back of catchup services. The stream would be packetised in order to pass through the system, but resending packets could be an issue as it would require multiple channels, (just like glitches on a conventional broadcast). The total bandwidth of all major broadcast streams would be a relatively small amount of traffic compared to the total internet payload.

 

[Ediswan]

I was considering using multicast transmission of TV to deliver programme streams to fixed internet receivers instead of over UHF (or sattelite) RF broadcasting. Would it be possible to provide multiple access points to receivers downstream to give simultaneous reception? If so then the backbone path would be a single stream that is split as it is distributed down to receiver access (i.e. domestic broadband connections). Just like current broadcasts, you would need to connect at the start time of the programme, - else there would be the current fall-back of catchup services. The stream would be packetised in order to pass through the system, but resending packets could be an issue as it would require multiple channels, (just like glitches on a conventional broadcast). The total bandwidth of all major broadcast streams would be a relatively small amount of traffic compared to the total internet payload.

A lot to digest there, substantive reply tomorrow.

 

[JamesT]

https://www.samknows.com/blog/beyond-speed-tests-cdn-performance

In this article, we're taking a look at the technologies used to deliver live TV streams over the internet by the BBC and ITV - the UK’s two largest terrestrial broadcasters. To do this, we ran performance measurements from nearly 700 UK homes during prime time, and then took a look at how the broadcasters, ISPs, and CDNs faired in SamKnows One.

I’m not sure if they use multicast to get from the source to the CDN, but it’s certainly a large saving compared to everyone doing unicast from source to end user.

 

[Sm5]

I moved to the US in the 1990’s and went from 5 channels here to 70+ channels there.

I couldnt make any sense of US TV at all, plus it was too full of adverts and pre-internet you couldnt find a meaningful tv guide.

I gave up watching TV then, that was over 25 years ago.

Roll on today, my little one watchs kids TV, my wife likes the “noise” of TV in the background and watches her various dramas, news etc…

so ive no chance to watch TV even if I wanted.

I could turn it off and leave it behind tomorrow… when family is away I dont use it at all. When at the inlaws its in a different language.

the internet has everything I need. When it comes to news, I read media from several countries, it gives a more balanced perspective than solely trusting the media of this country, which is just as biased as any other.

If I need comedy, I read social media, theres more guff there than any tv show.

 

[dosxuk]

https://www.samknows.com/blog/beyond-speed-tests-cdn-performance

I’m not sure if they use multicast to get from the source to the CDN, but it’s certainly a large saving compared to everyone doing unicast from source to end user.

Distribution from source to CDN's is a tiny amount of traffic. A CDN is just a fancy term for a bunch of servers pretending to be the source - in terms of total bandwidth usage, they actually use slightly more than serving directly - however they come with a whole bunch of advantages which makes them desirable for other reasons (like redundancy and having the CDN servers closer to the user).

The BBC use multiple different CDNs for their on-demand and live video streams, but they still have to pay for all that bandwidth usage for the unicast streams from CDN to user.

 

[Richardr]

Will consumption be simultaneous if we are all receiving streams rather than broadcast TV? Apart from live sporting occasions and news channels, won't people start, pause, and watch at different times, even if only a few minutes? Once they have the capability, do people not pause dramas to get a drink, snack, or toilet break, for example? Without a local hard drive, this will remove simultaneous viewing in a lot of cases.

 

[AY1975]

I can't remember, outside of news and sport, that i watched a TV programme "live" to be honest.

Me neither!

There may be a very niche market remaining for live programming.

Except for sporting/live events, it is already obsolete for many people, especially youngsters.

Even for live events, the traditional concept of TV has been superseded.

True, but probably for at least the next 20 or so years there will still be a sizeable, albeit diminishing, minority of the population - especially a lot of elderly people - that has a TV but doesn't use the internet.

As has been said in another thread, some of those who are currently in their 70s will still be around well into their 90s. Those who are in their 70s now will have been in their 50s and early 60s and mostly still working in the 1990s and early 2000s when technologies such as mobile phones and the internet as we know them today were starting to become widespread. If they were in white collar jobs then they will have been exposed to these technologies at work, but if they were in blue collar jobs, then not necessarily. And even if they were using those technologies at work, they might still have been (and still now be) keen to avoid using them outside of work.

See also this now closed thread on whether watching TV programmes via laptops, tablets and the like, rather than on a TV set, will ever become the norm: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nabled-device-rather-than-on-a-tv-set.231125/

 

[AM9]

Me neither!


True, but probably for at least the next 20 or so years there will still be a sizeable, albeit diminishing, minority of the population - especially a lot of elderly people - that has a TV but doesn't use the internet.

As has been said in another thread, some of those who are currently in their 70s will still be around well into their 90s. Those who are in their 70s now will have been in their 50s and early 60s and mostly still working in the 1990s and early 2000s when technologies such as mobile phones and the internet as we known them today were starting to become widespread. If they were in white collar jobs then they will have been exposed to these technologies at work, but if they were in blue collar jobs, then not necessarily. And even if they were using those technologies at work, they might still have been (and still now be) keen to avoid using them outside of work.

See also this now closed thread on whether watching TV programmes via laptops, tablets and the like, rather than on a TV set, will ever become the norm: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nabled-device-rather-than-on-a-tv-set.231125/

I think that the appetite for 'live' TV (as in real-time + whatever minimum encoding/transmitting/decoding latency there is) will still be there, not only for specific live programs, e.g. news and sport, but also soaps, quizzes, and 'first showings' of flagship productions where a significant proportion of the viewers want to see broadcasts at the earliest opportunity. The advantage of a simple virtual live TV box where channel selection is as easy as selecting which channel is viewed and where the delivery is of no relevance to the viewer is that it could replace much of the UHF and Sattelite broadcasting network allowing bandwidth to be recovered.
There is mention in the SamKnows report linked to in post#54 above that the 'small delay' in internet delivery is already 'controversial' but I can't see why, except maybe for on-air quizzes and live caller productions.

 

[JamesT]

I think that the appetite for 'live' TV (as in real-time + whatever minimum encoding/transmitting/decoding latency there is) will still be there, not only for specific live programs, e.g. news and sport, but also soaps, quizzes, and 'first showings' of flagship productions where a significant proportion of the viewers want to see broadcasts at the earliest opportunity. The advantage of a simple virtual live TV box where channel selection is as easy as selecting which channel is viewed and where the delivery is of no relevance to the viewer is that it could replace much of the UHF and Sattelite broadcasting network allowing bandwidth to be recovered.
There is mention in the SamKnows report linked to in post#54 above that the 'small delay' in internet delivery is already 'controversial' but I can't see why, except maybe for on-air quizzes and live caller productions.

One of the reasons why people want to watch TV as scheduled these days is social media. Live commentary on a programme that's ongoing whilst everyone is watching it, whether comments on a webforum or tweeting.
I'm not sure if it counts as controversial, but I have found the delay in live streams to often be irritating. Especially when you're trying to tie in different sources or have people watching the same programme who aren't synchronised. E.g. using a live score app when watching the football, the app 'pings' and you watch the goal going in as much as a minute later. Or listening to the radio for commentary but using the stream for pictures as you can't stand the TV commentators.

 

[LAX54]

People would have written the same about radio when TV came in. Broadcast TV will continue, as others have said, if only mainly for live TV, especially sport and news.

Most of the top-rated programmes still get the majority of their audience watching real time, albeit of course at massively reduced numbers than a couple of decades ago.

Think more watch 'live' tv than many give credit for, Linear TV is easy, just pick a programme from the EPG and watch it (or record) Streaming via a multitude of apps and services can be a right pain in the a***, then the internet throws a slight wobbly, and its gone .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Think more watch 'live' tv than many give credit for, Linear TV is easy, just pick a programme from the EPG and watch it (or record) Streaming via a multitude of apps and services can be a right pain in the a***, then the internet throws a slight wobbly, and its gone .

Plenty of us quite happily do it, though. It does require a quality Internet connection, yes, but increasingly that will be universal.