So, will a Tory government have much of an effect on the future of Freeview? Will they be more partial to selling off the airwaves? Are they pro-IPTV? Or has nothing changed?
There is absolutely nothing in the manifesto about it and I would be surprised if the policy is any different from the last five years of (mostly) Conservative government.
The next stage of that work is Ofcom’s consultation on 700 MHz clearance, which is due before the summer. I’m sure you’ll all take the opportunity to tell them exactly what you think!
But I also hope that broadcasters will view this as an opportunity for bold thinking. I would encourage them accelerate thinking on the feasibility of a longer-term move to the new DVB-T2 transmission with MPEG4 or even make the jump to the new HEVC compression standard.
Although a migration to DVB T2 would be outside the scope of a future 700MHz clearance – a coordinated transition would - in my view - greatly enhance the longevity of the platform and combine spectrum efficiency with benefits for consumers in terms of the enhancement of universal services and maintaining platform choice.
They might freeze the BBC license fee which may see BBC Three closure go ahead and effectively give us BBC 1 +1 this may be good or bad news for people.
I think we should stick with the existing Freeviw standard in the medium term and work towards broadcast switch off by the mid thirties.
As long as it's the 2130s.
Seriously, I think we should be working to free up other frequencies for mobile data use and leave the ever more squeezed DTT spectrum alone.
Only the top end of band III is being used for DAB in the UK, the lower part is used in some countries for TV, but we haven't used it since 405 line TV was switched off.
Why can't we use that instead of precious UHF bandwidth?
I think you will find that the whole of the VHF spectrum is allocated, there are not huge gaps that could be used for broadcasting. I think 2030s is entirely realistic, assuming it can hang on for that long.
I think broadcast switch off by the mid 2020s (say around 2025) would be achievable if somewhat ambitious.
Announce a date, and spur on the industry to get a move on. Invest in infrastructure roll out = create jobs. Invest in research & development and improve the technology. Sell the spectrum and cover some of the costs.
BT for example are already looking into Ultra HD (supposedly) via IPTV. BBC Three is going online only next year. I know I have a reasonable broadband connection - I have YouView and get the "Freeview" HD channels delivered online, but it wouldn't take much for YouView to entirely scrap having DTT channels and just offer them online (a bonus is that they could make a much better EPG). Better still, offer everything on demand and eventually do away with linear 'channels'
So that it can be replaced by free IPTV or so that Sky / pay TV can dominate?
The future of the License fee is looking bleak as well apparently. I saw an interesting promo on Channel 4 the other night (although it might have been a recording so could be some time ago)... basically stating that Channel 4 is brilliant because it is free and paid for by adverts.
Gosh there's some rubbish being posted on this thread. There is no evidence that this is an issue with any significant difference in approach between the main parties and yet the "evil Tories" are being accused of wanting to shut everything down! Get a grip.
Cameron has stated he wants a smaller state.
Off loading various parts of central gov to either local governments or the private sector, is what this gov is all about.
Surely with this in mind, it's obvious that his gov feels that things like the BBC, and nhs are just a burden around their neck that they would like to off load to somewhere else.
As a further demonstration of this, this morning the ticker tape on BBC news reported how they plan to off load stuff like policing to local governments (thru regional and city devolution).
Think mini United States and I think that's where we are headed over the next 5 years.
But Government funds it through the DCMS as the LF goes to Government and they give the BBC a budget!
So while its not 'part' of Government, they have a bloody big hand on the wheel!!!
(And they shouldn't have)
Democracy as we know it ends. Unions represent workers at the level and the new 40% of all workers rule bans strikes likely reducing workers pay and rights further long term.
Whatever the Tories do will depend on Rupert Murdoch giving his permission. With any luck he won't be around much longer and the person who takes over might not have so many ministers in his pocket.
Obviously, only the free market (Oligarchs are us) matters to them but they are aware they have to tread carefully with the BBC.
If the BBC goes then ITV could successfully switch much of their stuff to subscription services.
For income, I'd suggest bringing in adverts, one per hour maximum, with the funds used for independent production and maybe even partly funding competitors like ITV.
That way the license could freeze without a further blitze budgets.
The cost of those adverts is paid for by increasing the price of those products, so it is certainly not free.
But the companies will spend the same on marketing whether Channel 4 exists or not, so effectively it IS free. I'd rather the extra cost of products fund free things like Channel 4, than pay TV channels where you have to pay for the privilege of watching adverts!
So while its not 'part' of Government, they have a bloody big hand on the wheel!!!
(And they shouldn't have)
It's not Government, it's Parliament. That's why the licence fee is a separate item and a separate debate in parliament, not part of the budget. I agree government shouldn't have control, but it doesn't. That is why the licence fee needs to stay separate, and not just get lumped into general taxation.
Unions are there to represent their members in the workplace, they have absolutely no business interfering in government. They forget that all too often, which is why we need rules to control them.
I didn't vote to elect union representatives, and I do not want them trying to control what government does. That would be undemocratic.
That record was always going to happen under the new system.
Belief does not come into it. They would have already been registered under the old system, just like the thousands or million + who never bothered on the end.
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ed-vaizey-speech-to-digital-tv-group-summir-2014
He actually said something a bit stronger .....
As long as it's the 2130s.
Seriously, I think we should be working to free up other frequencies for mobile data use and leave the ever more squeezed DTT spectrum alone.
Only the top end of band III is being used for DAB in the UK, the lower part is used in some countries for TV, but we haven't used it since 405 line TV was switched off.
Why can't we use that instead of precious UHF bandwidth?
Announce a date, and spur on the industry to get a move on. Invest in infrastructure roll out = create jobs. Invest in research & development and improve the technology. Sell the spectrum and cover some of the costs.
BT for example are already looking into Ultra HD (supposedly) via IPTV. BBC Three is going online only next year. I know I have a reasonable broadband connection - I have YouView and get the "Freeview" HD channels delivered online, but it wouldn't take much for YouView to entirely scrap having DTT channels and just offer them online (a bonus is that they could make a much better EPG). Better still, offer everything on demand and eventually do away with linear 'channels'
So that it can be replaced by free IPTV or so that Sky / pay TV can dominate?
The future of the License fee is looking bleak as well apparently. I saw an interesting promo on Channel 4 the other night (although it might have been a recording so could be some time ago)... basically stating that Channel 4 is brilliant because it is free and paid for by adverts.
Sad but yes, i suspect it very much is
Off loading various parts of central gov to either local governments or the private sector, is what this gov is all about.
Surely with this in mind, it's obvious that his gov feels that things like the BBC, and nhs are just a burden around their neck that they would like to off load to somewhere else.
As a further demonstration of this, this morning the ticker tape on BBC news reported how they plan to off load stuff like policing to local governments (thru regional and city devolution).
Think mini United States and I think that's where we are headed over the next 5 years.
But Government funds it through the DCMS as the LF goes to Government and they give the BBC a budget!
So while its not 'part' of Government, they have a bloody big hand on the wheel!!!
(And they shouldn't have)
It is so so undemocratic where you need 24.3%(http://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2015/05/lets-not-get-carried-away-the-conservatives-only-won-over-a-quarter-of-all-potential-voters.html) or less to rule and 40% + to object. (the government changed the rules so we now have far more unregistered voters, so maybe the new government only won the votes of about 21% of the possible electorate.
Just remember, the word FAIRNESS has whole different meaning to those in government.
Obviously, only the free market (Oligarchs are us) matters to them but they are aware they have to tread carefully with the BBC.
If the BBC goes then ITV could successfully switch much of their stuff to subscription services.
For income, I'd suggest bringing in adverts, one per hour maximum, with the funds used for independent production and maybe even partly funding competitors like ITV.
That way the license could freeze without a further blitze budgets.
I didn't vote to elect union representatives, and I do not want them trying to control what government does. That would be undemocratic.
Belief does not come into it. They would have already been registered under the old system, just like the thousands or million + who never bothered on the end.