I don't see it as a conspiracy. I do think it is a reaction to the growth of online service providers as covered above. I bet Freeview will be around for some (considerable) time yet. A smaller yet related example is the enthusiastic politicians (if seemingly ignorant of science, people, industry, and life) who were going to replace AM/FM with DAB; all done and dusted by 2016. So how did that go?
Ordinary mortals (a.k.a. voters) buy their domestic entertainment devices and keep them for years - why shouldn't they? The major change that was the switch to digital TV took some years and the government ended up providing (paying for) set-top boxes to those who couldn't afford to buy new sets.
And people have become comfortable receiving some entertainment for free. A bit like how the NHS is viewed, I wouldn't want to be the person to tell them that now that all their future TV is going to cost. However, I can see the possibility providers may experiment and offer some paid-for options. If they don't do something maybe all the money and views will go to Netflix et al - who don't care about your poor reception, or my slow broadband, or local programming, as long as sufficient people pay up for them to make a profit. Sometimes a not-for-profit BBC can be a good thing
If the plan is for one common App and a standard method of working, perhaps somewhat like the BBC is now using to show multiple Wimbledon tennis matches via live and i Player, so that there is greater variety, then that would get my vote.
Wednesday 11 July 2018 5:35PM
I don't see it as a conspiracy. I do think it is a reaction to the growth of online service providers as covered above. I bet Freeview will be around for some (considerable) time yet. A smaller yet related example is the enthusiastic politicians (if seemingly ignorant of science, people, industry, and life) who were going to replace AM/FM with DAB; all done and dusted by 2016. So how did that go?
Ordinary mortals (a.k.a. voters) buy their domestic entertainment devices and keep them for years - why shouldn't they? The major change that was the switch to digital TV took some years and the government ended up providing (paying for) set-top boxes to those who couldn't afford to buy new sets.
And people have become comfortable receiving some entertainment for free. A bit like how the NHS is viewed, I wouldn't want to be the person to tell them that now that all their future TV is going to cost. However, I can see the possibility providers may experiment and offer some paid-for options. If they don't do something maybe all the money and views will go to Netflix et al - who don't care about your poor reception, or my slow broadband, or local programming, as long as sufficient people pay up for them to make a profit. Sometimes a not-for-profit BBC can be a good thing
If the plan is for one common App and a standard method of working, perhaps somewhat like the BBC is now using to show multiple Wimbledon tennis matches via live and i Player, so that there is greater variety, then that would get my vote.
Phil V