Freeview Switch Off
Discussion
So, there has been a proposal (proferred perhaps not surprisingly by the BBC- more about that later) to switch off terrestrial digital television broadcasting, possibly as soon as 2030, in consultation since January this year.
This completely flew under my radar until news stories breaking today that the consultation is due to end on August 31 and that it isn't going to get the attention it should because of it being lost in the hoo-ha of the change of Prime Minister.
The justification is the cost of maintaining both broadcast and on-line streaming services is too much, but I'm sensing an ulterior motive by the BBC. Surely the cost of the broadcast service is relatively minimal as all of the infrastructure investment was 20-30 years ago now and it has just been upgrades (SD to HD) and maintenance that are the ongoing expenses. Methinks that the BBC have realised they can control access via online distribution in a way broadcast doesn't allow them so they can win back the fight they are losing trying to enforce licence fee payment.
Interestingly other national broadcasters aren't as forthright about a switch off happening so soon. IMO I can see arguments on both sides but while the network is in place and working and not costing stupid money to maintain it should remain in place as a fall-back/free access platform.
This completely flew under my radar until news stories breaking today that the consultation is due to end on August 31 and that it isn't going to get the attention it should because of it being lost in the hoo-ha of the change of Prime Minister.
The justification is the cost of maintaining both broadcast and on-line streaming services is too much, but I'm sensing an ulterior motive by the BBC. Surely the cost of the broadcast service is relatively minimal as all of the infrastructure investment was 20-30 years ago now and it has just been upgrades (SD to HD) and maintenance that are the ongoing expenses. Methinks that the BBC have realised they can control access via online distribution in a way broadcast doesn't allow them so they can win back the fight they are losing trying to enforce licence fee payment.
Interestingly other national broadcasters aren't as forthright about a switch off happening so soon. IMO I can see arguments on both sides but while the network is in place and working and not costing stupid money to maintain it should remain in place as a fall-back/free access platform.
I've heard of this proposal before. I'm dead against. As soon as we're all streaming, they have us where they want us. They have control. No more recording and zapping the adverts unless you pay, for example. I also feel it lock out a lot of older people who have a phobia of technology. Plus broadcast TV is reliable in a way that streaming still isn't.
TameRacingDriver said:
I've heard of this proposal before. I'm dead against. As soon as we're all streaming, they have us where they want us. They have control. No more recording and zapping the adverts unless you pay, for example. I also feel it lock out a lot of older people who have a phobia of technology. Plus broadcast TV is reliable in a way that streaming still isn't.
It isn't just more reliable, it is significantly more energy efficient when millions of people are watching the same thing at the same time. It seems somewhat ironic that energy consumption (and the consequential "climate change") gets ignored as a factor when it is politically expedient to do so (see also AI Data Centres).Hmm yes a complex issue compounded by the digital age and the fact a lot of people are refusing to pay the TV license too. The digital switch over is definitely here. Couple that with the fact ITV (owned by Sky) may not be on the free to air list by this point I can see why this would die off. It's key to separate some things here however.
Everything is now on the digital spectrum regardless and even if DTT was turned off it, DOES NOT mean that Freeview as a service (free to air) would stop. It may continue and other free to air services (free sat, various IPTVs) would and can replace it and maintain free to air channels.
Yes you can't get a £10 aerial from Argos and balance it on a bookshelf anymore, but the steps to connect your TV to the WiFi are not a lot more taxing, if at all.
Part of the consultation is to enable everyone to have high speed broadband to be able to cope with the streaming services and the side to that is, talking of "trustworthy and reliable", phase out PSTN which is on the cusp of being switched off but blockers remain on getting everyone onto high speed internet there remote locations, problematic landlords etc.
The cost as someone said above is tens of millions to the BBC per year and the sums spiral more when considering the wider network, at an estimated £1b over the next 10 years. That's a lot of money to maintain an old system.
Change is scary but I don't think this will be such a major issue.
Everything is now on the digital spectrum regardless and even if DTT was turned off it, DOES NOT mean that Freeview as a service (free to air) would stop. It may continue and other free to air services (free sat, various IPTVs) would and can replace it and maintain free to air channels.
Yes you can't get a £10 aerial from Argos and balance it on a bookshelf anymore, but the steps to connect your TV to the WiFi are not a lot more taxing, if at all.
Part of the consultation is to enable everyone to have high speed broadband to be able to cope with the streaming services and the side to that is, talking of "trustworthy and reliable", phase out PSTN which is on the cusp of being switched off but blockers remain on getting everyone onto high speed internet there remote locations, problematic landlords etc.
The cost as someone said above is tens of millions to the BBC per year and the sums spiral more when considering the wider network, at an estimated £1b over the next 10 years. That's a lot of money to maintain an old system.
Change is scary but I don't think this will be such a major issue.
TikTak said:
The cost as someone said above is tens of millions to the BBC per year and the sums spiral more when considering the wider network, at an estimated £1b over the next 10 years. That's a lot of money to maintain an old system.
Just to be totally clear as this is a little ambiguous - the BBC does not maintain the terrestrial broadcasting infrastructure network and have not done so for 30 years. They are simply a customer of Arqiva same as ITV and Channel 4. Obviously if Arqivas' running costs go up they will pass on increases to their customers.I'm completely fine with it. As a household, we haven't used terrestrial TV/Freeview for years now. Everything we consume on the TV is via internet services.
I don't think it will be an issue for older viewers either. My parents are in their late 70's and they have used Freeview for years but have issues such as Very poor selection of channels on their local Freeview transmitter (I believe they have short-changed some area of the county by giving them what they call 'Freeview Lite' transmitters). I got them Freely streaming devices for their TVs and they thought it was a massive improvement. 80+ free channels with over half of them in HD/4K.
As for the BBC issue, I think it's a good thing. It will allow the BBC to easily paywall their services and make them subscription only if they wish, which will put even more pressure on the BBC/Government to abandon the license fee. If you have to subscribe to watch the BBC then there is no longer a need to send people out knocking on doors telling you to buy a licence because they can see a TV in your living room.
My final point is a very minor one: How much more aesthetically pleasing would houses look without the blight of millions of TV antennas and satellite dishes all over the place, gently sagging and rusting as time goes by.
I don't think it will be an issue for older viewers either. My parents are in their late 70's and they have used Freeview for years but have issues such as Very poor selection of channels on their local Freeview transmitter (I believe they have short-changed some area of the county by giving them what they call 'Freeview Lite' transmitters). I got them Freely streaming devices for their TVs and they thought it was a massive improvement. 80+ free channels with over half of them in HD/4K.
As for the BBC issue, I think it's a good thing. It will allow the BBC to easily paywall their services and make them subscription only if they wish, which will put even more pressure on the BBC/Government to abandon the license fee. If you have to subscribe to watch the BBC then there is no longer a need to send people out knocking on doors telling you to buy a licence because they can see a TV in your living room.
My final point is a very minor one: How much more aesthetically pleasing would houses look without the blight of millions of TV antennas and satellite dishes all over the place, gently sagging and rusting as time goes by.
48k said:
Just to be totally clear as this is a little ambiguous - the BBC does not maintain the terrestrial broadcasting infrastructure network and have not done so for 30 years. They are simply a customer of Arqiva same as ITV and Channel 4. Obviously if Arqivas' running costs go up they will pass on increases to their customers.
Interestingly, Arquiva and ITV are the most vocal against this move. They of course have their own vested interests, but I stick by the fact that the BBC seem to be the outlier in this and their motivations are not altruistic. What is interesting is that the story about this consultation seems to have resurfaced as part of the Burnham hype and that the BBC seem to think they have a sympathetic ear with him.To me this looks like the BBC using a straw-man argument to re-instate a grip on licence fee enforcement while at the same time lighting a fire under their national broadcast competition.
Renegade Master said:
I'm completely fine with it. As a household, we haven't used terrestrial TV/Freeview for years now. Everything we consume on the TV is via internet services.
I don't think it will be an issue for older viewers either. My parents are in their late 70's and they have used Freeview for years but have issues such as Very poor selection of channels on their local Freeview transmitter (I believe they have short-changed some area of the county by giving them what they call 'Freeview Lite' transmitters). I got them Freely streaming devices for their TVs and they thought it was a massive improvement. 80+ free channels with over half of them in HD/4K.
As for the BBC issue, I think it's a good thing. It will allow the BBC to easily paywall their services and make them subscription only if they wish, which will put even more pressure on the BBC/Government to abandon the license fee. If you have to subscribe to watch the BBC then there is no longer a need to send people out knocking on doors telling you to buy a licence because they can see a TV in your living room.
My final point is a very minor one: How much more aesthetically pleasing would houses look without the blight of millions of TV antennas and satellite dishes all over the place, gently sagging and rusting as time goes by.
The BBC cannot go fully subscription, as discussed ad nauseam on here on the myriad licence fee threads.I don't think it will be an issue for older viewers either. My parents are in their late 70's and they have used Freeview for years but have issues such as Very poor selection of channels on their local Freeview transmitter (I believe they have short-changed some area of the county by giving them what they call 'Freeview Lite' transmitters). I got them Freely streaming devices for their TVs and they thought it was a massive improvement. 80+ free channels with over half of them in HD/4K.
As for the BBC issue, I think it's a good thing. It will allow the BBC to easily paywall their services and make them subscription only if they wish, which will put even more pressure on the BBC/Government to abandon the license fee. If you have to subscribe to watch the BBC then there is no longer a need to send people out knocking on doors telling you to buy a licence because they can see a TV in your living room.
My final point is a very minor one: How much more aesthetically pleasing would houses look without the blight of millions of TV antennas and satellite dishes all over the place, gently sagging and rusting as time goes by.
48k said:
The BBC cannot go fully subscription, as discussed ad nauseam on here on the myriad licence fee threads.
True, I agree, but what I'm saying is that if the BBC go fully online only, and abandon terrestrial transmission, then it will add weight to the argument that they could just paywall their services instead of chasing/harassing the whole country for a licence fee. This may well not happen of course, but it was just a thought.R4EVS said:
Methinks that the BBC have realised they can control access via online distribution in a way broadcast doesn't allow them so they can win back the fight they are losing trying to enforce licence fee payment.
Wrong.At the moment a TV licence is needed if you watch any broadcast TV, but you don't if you only watch streaming services.
As soon as the BBC goes towards streaming only then you can be sure they will be arguing that a TV licence is required if you can watch any streaming services, because that would argue that would be a 'like for like' change.
slievenashaska said:
R4EVS said:
Methinks that the BBC have realised they can control access via online distribution in a way broadcast doesn't allow them so they can win back the fight they are losing trying to enforce licence fee payment.
Wrong.At the moment a TV licence is needed if you watch any broadcast TV, but you don't if you only watch streaming services.
As soon as the BBC goes towards streaming only then you can be sure they will be arguing that a TV licence is required if you can watch any streaming services, because that would argue that would be a 'like for like' change.
Currently you need a TV licence to watch any live TV transmissions and this includes streaming such as BBC IPlayer or Amazon Prime.
48k said:
Renegade Master said:
48k said:
The BBC cannot go fully subscription, as discussed ad nauseam on here on the myriad licence fee threads.
True, I agree, but what I'm saying is that if the BBC go fully online only, and abandon terrestrial transmission, then it will add weight to the argument that they could just paywall their services instead of chasing/harassing the whole country for a licence fee. This may well not happen of course, but it was just a thought.
They couldn't because the business model just doesn't work.
23.3 million households pay for a £165(?) licence raising £3.9 billion. How many would subscribe if they could watch other live tv without it? Half of them - OK, so now the licence is £330 a year, so how many now?Etc. Etc.
48k said:
slievenashaska said:
R4EVS said:
Methinks that the BBC have realised they can control access via online distribution in a way broadcast doesn't allow them so they can win back the fight they are losing trying to enforce licence fee payment.
Wrong.At the moment a TV licence is needed if you watch any broadcast TV, but you don't if you only watch streaming services.
As soon as the BBC goes towards streaming only then you can be sure they will be arguing that a TV licence is required if you can watch any streaming services, because that would argue that would be a 'like for like' change.
Currently you need a TV licence to watch any live TV broadcasts and this includes streaming such as BBC IPlayer or Amazon Prime.
As for other live broadcasts - are there? and why would you?
slievenashaska said:
48k said:
slievenashaska said:
R4EVS said:
Methinks that the BBC have realised they can control access via online distribution in a way broadcast doesn't allow them so they can win back the fight they are losing trying to enforce licence fee payment.
Wrong.At the moment a TV licence is needed if you watch any broadcast TV, but you don't if you only watch streaming services.
As soon as the BBC goes towards streaming only then you can be sure they will be arguing that a TV licence is required if you can watch any streaming services, because that would argue that would be a 'like for like' change.
Currently you need a TV licence to watch any live TV broadcasts and this includes streaming such as BBC IPlayer or Amazon Prime.
As for other live broadcasts - are there? and why would you?
48k said:
Amazon Prime, ITVX, Channel 4 - three examples of online streaming services which carry live events which would require you to have a TV licence to watch live.
Great, there are, but that doesn't answer the 'why would you'. I have never felt the need to watch something live rather than streamed, although I can't be bothered with sport so maybe that is the answer.And just because those live services exist on the streaming players doesn't mean you have to have a TV licence if you never use them.
slievenashaska said:
48k said:
Amazon Prime, ITVX, Channel 4 - three examples of online streaming services which carry live events which would require you to have a TV licence to watch live.
Great, there are, but that doesn't answer the 'why would you'. I have never felt the need to watch something live rather than streamed, although I can't be bothered with sport so maybe that is the answer.And just because those live services exist on the streaming players doesn't mean you have to have a TV licence if you never use them.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff