Not as straightforward as you might think. There are copyright and other issues which require the BBC to negotiate in order to show old programmes. They can’t just load everything they have.
One of the latest trends I've noticed across the main channels has been to keep a show on air all year round (think Bargain Hunt or The Chase for example). They do it by mixing in new episodes with repeats, without announcing the fact on air. Presumably this saves a fair amount as they don't need to produce another show to fill the slot when a run comes to an end and not everyone will notice they're watching a repeat if a few years have passed since the previous airing. It's become much more obvious in the last few years with socially distanced pandemic era episodes mixed with pre and post pandemic ones.
The end of freeview Would Definitely damage a lot of households in the uk due to the fact of the current cost of living crisis and a lot of people don’t have the money for sky or virgin or now.
The "cost of living crisis" will be over long before any changes to Freeview are made. Economic slumps are a fact of modern economies and every decade has one. Any changes that could happen during this particular slump would not be greater then the £160 defacto annual subscription you have to pay to legally watch Freeview anyway.
@@KingEurope1 the £160 is still required for streaming a live broadcast, so people who watch football on Amazon prime have to pay £300 per year to watch it
I think Freeview will be around for sometime yet. BT has a lot of work to do to get acceptable bandwidth to every house in the UK so you can watch streaming without the dreadful buffering
It's funny how when it comes to building or paying for new infrastructure BT suddenly becomes "British telecom" again and we're all paying for a national network out of government money where the people who really benefit from it are talk talk, EE, Sky etc and that other BT, the one that gets to keep all the profits. Like the water companies who were meant to take responsibility for upgrading the victoriana pipes.
@@patrickvanspliff6010 It's funny how when it comes to building or paying for new infrastructure BT suddenly becomes "British telecom" again and we're all paying for a national network out of government money where the people who really benefit from it are talk talk, EE, Sky etc and that other BT, the one that gets to keep all the profits. Like the water companies who were meant to take responsibility for upgrading the victoriana pipes.
Just hope they dont carve up DTT and Freesat (FTA Sat), and leave only a small section for the traditional 5 FTA channels. The output on the 5 channels is truly dredful. If you have a smart TV, you will get extra IP services like Samsung Tv plus or LG Channels where you would need an internet connection to watch. I don't know if these will stay the same with Freeview Play or the Freesat equivalent rebranded as Freely, or if they will become Freely branded with Freeview Play and the Freesat equivalent being shut down. Either way it's gong to cost more to watch what is currently FTA on FTA or Freesat beyond the traditional 5 terrestrial channels with you needing an internet connection to watch. Freely is more an improvement of Freeview Play with the FTA on Freeview and Freesat being slashed dramatically. Dreading the day where your internet cnnection could cut out when you're watching Freely, plus forking out for internet connecrltion just to acceas Freely (those without the internet that is).
I remember watching Blue Peter about year 2000 and they suggested the future would have something we now know as streaming but for all old archived TV. That hasn't happened for ALL old TV, but obviously has for new content.
I went to the BBC exhibition in Cardiff City Hall about it the same year. There was free internet access there at a time when it cost £5 an hour in cyber cafes. Just before the libraries offered it for free but with restricted access and often juat an hour at a time.
Freeview is very useful just for simple viewing, and also I am able to easily DVD record shows so it disappearing would definitely end most chances of recording. You also make a very valid point as those less savvy are able to use modern equipment.
The actual cost of having Freeview or Freesat work out about the same. Some people automatically think that, having a satellite dish, means subscription. There are actually more channels and more HD channels on Freesat than Freeview.
freeview is not free if you are watching live tv.or if you record live or programs it is still not free it is a catch to get you to have a free box to pay for the license .
@@wisteela 50/50 as there will be live on the freeview which will give the hunchbacks reason for knocking on your door we do not have any free or virgin free boxes nothing we have a tv that we do not use so our grandson can play his games when he visits that is it then it is switched off nothing is connected neither sky just watch you tube or play games for a few hours that is it.the rest i go out do gardening or take a walk more of a active people here .
I fear they will add the licence Tax to something like council tax so you are given no choice if top pay it or not. I've always said that its unfair that you still need to pay the licence Tax if you only want to watch other channels that are supposed to be free. It should only apply to watching the BBC.
I'm pretty shocked it hasn't happened already. Digital UK/Everyone TV are hopefully working on this, as Freeview is stuck with the double whammy of having extremely limited bandwidth and an extremely inefficient video codec, making it not fit for purpose in a TV market where 50 inch TVs cost £300 and make heavily compressed standard def broadcasts look like sludge. Freesat also has a expiry date almost entirely dictated by Sky and the rapidly decreasing economic feasibility of leasing satellite capacity as a broadcaster. As on-demand gets more and more prevalent as well, it will become practically impossible to enforce the "due prominence" that gives the BBC it's meal ticket without a free open-platform that isn't half-arsed and some-what disjointed from linear like Freeview Play is. iPlayer will not get priority over commericial streaming services who will pay for prominence and pay commissions.
Maybe - But it needs to work far better than it does at the moment. Those IPTV channels on there now are awful to navigate, especially with the time needed for them to appear on the screen.
@@KingEurope1 it's still ~30Mbps IIRC, albeit MPEG2 like a DVD. That's still equivalent to ~15Mbps in H264, while Netflix only gives you ~4 in H264. Of course ~15Mbps H264 is more like ~7Mbps in H265/VP9 and that is becoming a lot more comparable for a lot less bandwidth. But when compared to the (again IIRC) ~60Mbps H264 for Freeview HD, that's still pretty decent considering it's rare to see ~30Mbps H265 HD online streaming. Maybe they should just retire DVB and switch to DVB2. Or a new DVB3 with AV1.
I think TV will start becoming more like Sky Glass and Stream with linear channels existing for people who don't want to watch anything specifically or for big TV moments like Doctor Who, with on demand content along side it. Moving TV to online only like Sky is doing will be a huge change, and they can get rid of the shopping channels, +1 channels, etc. since there wouldn't be a need.
@@1701_FyldeFlyer why do people actually have smart boxes anyway literally every tv made post 2014 is a smart tv with a usable interface to get RUclips/web/app access better than switching remotes and messing with inputs
I think Freeview is in a good position where the cost of living is affecting a lot of us. Families have to cut down on the nice to haves of Sky and Virgin to make ends meet.
Considering that the next UK Government, which will probably take effect within the next two years, but no later than 25 January 2025, is likely to be Labour, I don't think they'll be too enthusiastic on what the Tories want to do with the BBC. While I am not too enthusiastic on more and more live tv being internet-based (more apps to steal your data with, wooo!), I'll begrudgingly accept it if it's still free to air, and most people are wired up for broadband internet.
While we still have issues with the time delay on live streaming, most noticeable on live sport events, there will always be a requirement for live broadcasting. As I view this video, I am (coincidentally) setting up a USB DVB-T2 dongle to work with Linux and have also got DAB+ to work too. My worry is that the valuable higher MHz frequencies will be snapped up by the mobile phone companies for billions that the broadcasters simply can't compete with, satellite broadcasting will succumb to the Internet and we will have no free-to-air television or radio platforms.
The UHF spectrum 470 upwards can be used for better mobile phone services. Anything below that, is basically useless. Apart from radio. However, AM radio is closing so once they’ve gone, it can’t be used for anything else. Same goes for FM and DAB.
Radio from Freeview and Freesat is better (larger bit rate and in more in stereo instead of mono). Internet radio is higher quality and BBC Sounds (as a catch up service) have 320 bit per second rates compared to 64 mono and 128 bps of DABs and 128kps Freesat/Freeview.
@@geraldmcmullon2465 In theory, DAB could use more kbp/s but they choose not to. Instead, opting for more stations. This in turn, means that the stations do not sound as good. If the stations on DAB were to change to DAB+ then the stations can use an even higher bitrate. Again, as you can see from the Global stations (Heart 80’s etc) they opt for a lower 32 or 40kbp/s so more stations can be broadcast. As listeners, we want choice. Unfortunately that’s why some stations sound better than others. In my opinion, FM sounds the best. It is just a shame it’s full of BBC stations. I also still listen to 5 Live and TalkSPORT on medium wave. It is better for live commentary. There is a four second delay on DAB, whereas medium wave, is almost near live.
Back in 1988 Star Trek TNG had Data tell us that TV did not survive much beyond 2040. This was the golden age of TV, it seemed a crazy suggestion. Fast forward 35 years and it seems increasingly unlikely that TV will make it to 2040
I've never owned one at all. Just use my laptop and second monitor if I want to stream something. I find TVs in old peoples living rooms weird. They just leave them on all the time.
Freeview is good for people when camping or while otherwise away from home, where downloads would be too costly. Remember that Freeview is actually cheap since it echoes Freesat. Similarly, the +1 channels are just the channel, so probably don't cost too much on the scale of things (when compared to the cost of new or premade content). I think we may see a mixture of subscription and government-funded, the government might pay for a few radio stations and the BBC news service, for example, ut if people want the other, non-funded channels, they'll subscribe. We may well see a return to having the basic 2 BBC channels alongside various ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 channels, for as long as the advertising funding remains. Myself, I opted out of paying the license since I was watching just a couple of shows a week and found that I could happily live without live TV completely, so I now do so. I'm quite happy without it and iPlayer.
In Ireland, we have an equivalent called Saorview, which is practically the same. No UK channels or spillover though, except for Sky News and Challenge (for some reason)
Sky News and Challenge (which is owned by Sky) have quite a significant amount of advertisements for Sky products during their breaks. The strategy is likely to expose free-to-air viewers to a drip feed of "This is what you could be watching instead" in-between the news and old episodes of The Chase. And specifically for Sky News (and Sky Arts in the UK) it also serves to increase the prestige of the brand, which helps subconsciously push sales of Sky TV and other products like Sky Mobile.
@@KingEurope1 Exactly, which ends up being totally redundant since most Saorview users in Ireland are seniors who don't want to pay for anything more than the TV licence
Showing old 1960's films and 80's TV shows like Minder etc in HD is pointless as they were never filmed in HD back then. If you were steaming this content in pseudo HD it would be eating data for no good reason.
@@bigbabatunde1218 actually most TV shows back in the 80's (like Minder) were shot on film and if they still have the original negatives, then they can go up to 4K depending on the quality of the film stock. Just look at the HD remastered versions of Friends and Star Trek TOS & TNG. All those shows were shot and edited on film, even the special effects. The most recent US show to be remastered fully was Murder She Wrote in glorious HD and released as a Blu Ray box set.
@@chindleymuffin People in the industry had no concept of 4K back in the 60's, 70's and 80's so didn't film anything in 4K or HD even. What you have been watching in remasters is digital trickery in the form of fancy up scaling. They even did it with old Laurel and Hardy films from the 1930's by putting them in colour.
Tv is mostly for people who are too old to browse the internet, and don't know how to stream pirated content. The only time I'll stick the telly on is to make sure none of the soaps are on before I phone my mum.
The future of Freesat is interesting as well as Freeview. I use Freesat, in an area where the old UHF was handled by a “repeater” transmitter, that ended up with limited Freeview compared with Freesat. The unit I have is at least 15 years old now. Lots of changes on Freesat, with many more channels using HD than at the start.
I have a lot of nostalgia for terrestrial TV but I do see why it makes more sense to obsolete this method of television delivery and that the frequencies can be put to better multi-purpose use these days. Freeview, you will be missed!
no, not everyone has the internet, it shouldnt be assumed they do, just as you shouldnt assume everyone has a smartphone, or even any mobile phone .. shutting down over air tv restricts choice/availability, not increases it ,, cost is a big factor as internet costs much more than the licence fee...
I'd rather have an obsolete method of delivery that guarantees me live tv coverage that doesn't pause than a new method that's a minute behind and prone to freezing. I subscribe to Eurosport which I love but if the same sporting event is on BBC at the same time I'll watch the BBC coverage instead because it is always ahead and hassle free.
@@B-A-L yep, thats another issue, some may have internet but not fast enough, or have a download allowance limit, the existing technology works well so why scrap it? bet i know, they dont want to pay for the upkeep of the transmitters, i've read the bbc want to stop ALL over air transmissions, radio as well as tv, eventually, everything via internet ...
@@B-A-L flashbacks to early-00s pubgoers complaining the satellite coverage of football was 10-30 seconds behind the terrestrial analogue coverage, and the same again in 06-09 during the digital switchover for terrestrial! Honestly, me I don't mind a bit of a delay. But what drove me up the wall was how every Freeview box had a _different_ delay, so a house that was previously in-sync had an awful echo effect post-switchover.
I think it will be around in a reduced form for at least the next 15 years possibly longer just because of the public service commitment. Many pensioners, people in rural communities and the poorest will still be reliant on it for some to come. Longer term a completely internet based solution is inevitable but may need further regulation or standardisation to make it accessible. Something like a standardised freeview version of sky stream that gives linear channels by just pressing a channel number might accelerate the change.
no it should not be inevitable, not everyone has the internet, not everyone wants or needs it, it shouldnt be a necessity for basic 'broadcast' radio and tv , just as not everyone has a smartphone,
@@andygozzo72 : When the entire world is also hoarding and fighting for your attentions as well. No.. you don't want the internet. Cos watching a TV for your own enjoyment is no more, without actually being sold, or targetted in some ways !!! So no.... Not really.
I think for the whole accessibility thing should be the main reason why it stays, some people (often of the older generation) usually aren't used to using streaming services (although my grandmother, she's 74, and likes watching shows on Netflix). Also, taking into consideration that there are still areas in the UK that have little to no internet access for streaming services to be useful, really remote places that are like no man's land, they rely on television as a lifeline of sorts. Also, watching a streamed sports game like a rugby match or football really takes away from the live essence that you get from watching it in real time, usually there's about a two second delay when streaming it.
Live TV is actually around 5-10 seconds behind a live broadcast. Streaming is nearer a minute or so. Have a look at when Amazon stream Premier League or when BBC iPlayer streamed the Euros and World Cup. Some people said their stream was 90 seconds behind live tv.
Age doesn't have to do with it at all. It's interest that has to do with it. The internet as we know it and digital started in the 90's of the 20th century. The current old generation was part of it, back then. They didn't all of a sudden stop knowing about, just cause their old
@@dutchgamer842 Mate their are still people from the 30s and 20s still here that have never even used the internet or even used netflix and have no desire to you cant force them to use it either maybe in another30 -40 years then the next generation of old people will know how to use it i mean im nearly 50 so im going to be the next generation of old people and i know how to use the internet and i know how to work netflix and others and i know we need to change with the times but the current generation of old people some still dont know how to use the internet or netflix so they wont forget about them
The problem with Freeview is the way it is transmitted, through the old fashioned TV transmitters. Their digital signals can be quite sloppy, depending where you live. Old analogue days those transmitters were better, as analogue provided you with a reasonable signal even if you were in a fringe area of reception. Digital means an "all or nothing" approach, with signal quality pixelating if the signal drops. Satellite free TV through Freesat is the best option for free to air TV. Signal always excellent.
And digital SD services give a poor quality picture even when the signal is strong - distinctly poorer than analogue TV as you're limited to about 480 pixels across with noticeable compression artefacts giving a fuzzy picture that lacks detail. Even the compressed version of HD that we get on broadcast TV often suffers from pixelation on fast-changing images.
@@saltwell Just shows that analogue had it's plus side. We got more channels, but terrible quality in both content of the channels and their signals. I remember back around 1993 when I was 8, we had a portable TV in the kitchen with a small indoor aerial placed on top of the set, and we receive perfectly reasonable TV quality of all channels available. Now in 2023, my TV in the kitchen could never pick up Freeview with an indoor aerial, even though we are only 2 miles from the nearest transmitter. My kitchen TV is now used for streaming, I watch iPlayer, ITVX, All4, Netflix on it.
@@bigbabatunde1218 I said analogue had it's plus side in the old days. Signal quality in terms of how it degraded was better during the analogue years. Today, the digital signal immediate fails as soon as it falls below a certain level. Analogue was snowy, ghosting, but you could still watch the channel
@@johnking5174 Yes, I remember. It's just the way you went from talking about analogue to digital in your post without clarifying. *"Just shows that analogue had it's plus side.* *We got more channels but terrible quality"* etc. Not on analogue signal we didn't.
Just switched from sky to Freeview due to the cost of living crisis I've had Freeview before but in last 4 years I had sky however like many had to make a choice of axing it to save some money I think cost of living crisis Only good thing out of it is more going back to Freeview So I do hope it still here for long time to come
"Freeview" over 100 channels and nothing on, is what we used to say before we stopped paying for a TV license and took our aerial down for good, the birds no longer sit on the aerial and crap on our car in the driveway its a win win situation , there is plenty of content online to stream in non live TV, the radio makes up for live news during the day. why wait for a programme to come on at a certian time of day? when you can watch what you want when you want to streaming the content online.
That article is very flawed. If it's believed that a subscription model work or that a guardian style process we also work, then it's not being logical. I think the BBC will transition to one which is funded through general taxation and not through a licence fee. Advertising model won't work because it then takes revenue away from commercial broadcasters. I also think the change of government from Boris Johnson to Rishi Sunak means that we have seen a different perspective on broadcasting.
I agree that a voluntary system is heavily flawed. There is also the option to include a small levy on Internet bills similar to how other European countries fund public broadcasting.
The future of TVs will be like the LG range with both Freeview and freesat as well the streaming service and hdmi for sky/virgin and BT tv . I think 🤔 Freeview will survive but it will much smaller than what it is now
Honestly I think freeview will eventually adapt. Its thr channels and streaming services who right now are struggling g to get the idea that they are churning out generic meaningless content. Years ago it was challenging, intelligent and served a purpose. Nowadays its very much the same of the same to fill time. Theres no risks taken.
If live TV on Freeview is under threat, would that also apply to the (not inconsiderable overlapping number of) channels on satellite also? After all, the only real difference between the two is the delivery system... if it's dead on one, surely the other wouldn't last much longer given the expense of replacement (I remember the fuss caused by the analogue switch-off well, and it would be history repeating itself).
That satellite is cheaper to broadcast on then Freeview is an indictment of how unfit for purpose Freeview has been for over a decade, and how zero foresight was given to it, just continuing the old rope set up in the mid 90s that's well beyond it's best before date. An extraordinary amount of bandwidth is wasted by showing standard def channels compressed with a codec almost 30 years old and designed to run on extremely cheap hardware of the Windows 3.1 era.
You’re right, freeview is just the delivery method. Not a content producer itself. Freeview ending just means those channels don’t have that method to be delivered. It’ll be up to each broadcaster what they do without that service. Some may continue via things like Sky, some may stream only (UKTV (which includes channels like Dave) already has the UKTV Play streaming service. Some may close if they think they can’t sustain on other delivery platforms.
There is a difference. Freeview uses the UHF spectrum and is subject to interference from mobile phone signals and atmospherics. HD is as good of a resolution you will see. 4K is not possible. Hence, why BBC use the iPlayer. Apart from the three main multiplexes (BBC A, BBC B HD and D3&4) which broadcast in 704/720x576 SD and 1080 HD respectively, the other three muxes (ARQ A, ARQ B and ARQ C) use a 544x576 SD resolution and a lower bitrate. This is to offer viewers the choice of channels but at the cost of a lower resolution/bitrate. These channels look awful on a much bigger TV. They could broadcast 720x576 SD, but the choice of channels would be reduced. Satellite, comes from space and is not subject to any interference. It also has better coverage than you would get from just using a tv aerial. It is preferred by those who live in rural areas, where they could only get the main three multiplexes from Freeview. I agree, that if Freeview gets turned off, then Freesat/Sky/ satellite would surely follow. Sky are already trialling this with Sky Glass and the Sky Stream box. Fibre broadband is becoming more available to people in rural areas. However, Starlink and other alternatives are available. Satellite us
Freeview (100) is technically the most-watched channel in my house, since I always leave it on there whenever I’ve finished so I can never be startled when I start the TV by a sudden loud programme, and the recording/disc-reading box is a separate functionality of the remote.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Yes, but the point is that I will be in control of the moment the channels change, whereas how long it takes the box to be ready to start playing is not within my control.
@@DrWhoFanJ In my experience, TV's have a very poor audio compression attack threshold before kicking in, therefore letting nasty peaks and screams through with scant regard to the viewer's welfare.
@@bigbabatunde1218 I mean, that may be true, but it has absolutely no relevance here whatsoever. It isn’t the noise itself that’s the issue; it’s the noise *randomly starting* that is.
@@DrWhoFanJ Can't have intrusive noise if the volume is set at one or two above minimum though. Channel hopping is the worst as the mild compression circuitry can't kick in quick enough and it's just a screeching rabble as a result. Unless I'm deliberately listening to music coming from the TV then I keep the volume down as low as I can get away and just go with subtitles wherever possible. I had enough of screeching no marks blaring from TV's years ago.
I can see in the not to distant future terrestrial TV will return to five over the air channels. With all the other frequencies Freeview broadcasts on being auctioned off.
I think you've come at this from the wrong angle - Freeview is the de facto replacement for terrestrial analogue tv and I believe the system itself is only for EPG and marketing of the terrestrial FTA TV. For example, the BBC has its own transmitters, which are separate from the ones used by commercial broadcasters - this is completely independent of Freeview itself, which just sits on top and organises the channels and EPG for a nice end-user experience. The main threat to terrestrial FTA TV is that it uses a big chunk of valuable radio spectrum, which the telecoms companies would love to use. The recent talk has been about moving FTA TV to online-only, but my main concern is that this relies on the internet, and everyone having a connection - the potential for cyber terrorism and cyber warfare could render the entire population without any means of communication or information, should we be wholly reliant...
... on the internet. Keeping FTA TV and radio signals over-the-air would give some level of contingency should the worst happen. There is also the argument that the internet requires a paid subscription and not everyone has it, nor wants it, so some level of over the air broadcast would be required. My suggestion would be that should telecoms providers take over the part of the spectrum that Freeview currently occupies, they would be required to facilitate 5G FTA broadcasts (ie one-way IPTV) of these channels which would be receivable by set-top-boxes and mobile devices. Modern video compression techniques would allow for considerably less bandwidth requirement than the current DVB broadcasts utilised by Freeview.
I still use Freeview but I usually record everything I'm planning to watch rather than sticking to the TV schedules. What's disappointing is how the number of HD channels have declined in the past 2-3 years. At one point there were 3 DVB-T2 multiplexes carrying a number of HD channels and now we're just down to one. Considering that the majority of homes now have HD TVs, it seems a backwards step to be removing HD channels, they should really be shutting down the older SD channels in favour of their HD versions not the other way around. Like the digital switchover where they turned off all the analogue signals, maybe it's time for an SD to HD switchover. Sky has done something similar recently, all their BBC1 regionals are now HD only. I don't think Freeview should go quite in that direction, it should keep at least the main 5 channels in SD for legacy equipment that can't decode the HD signals, but the likes of ITV2, 3, 4, Film4, E4 etc should start getting an HD upgrade.
ITV 2,3 and 4 are free to air on satellite. They launched earlier this year. Sky booted them out of the sub club and ITV X stream the channels in HD as standard. It is only a matter of time before more channels go HD, but I believe it will be on satellite and not on freeview DVB-T2.
@@L1RW I wonder if satellite will go before Freeview. As Sky seems to be pushing more towards receiving their content online. First it was Sky Glass, now it's Sky Stream.
@@jkmac625 well skys deal runs out in 2028. So they have until then, to either continue or pull out. I imagine channels will stay free to air, providing that the viewing figures are still strong.
I think the trend is pretty clear now. There will come a time sometime in the next 20 years where if you still want to watch broadcast television it will either be satellite or cable. There is already the BBC in recent weeks and months switching to HD on satellite(Sky and Freesat). So I think eventually BBC SD channels will be switched off much sooner than 2036 or whatever year it is. I hope most people now have a DVB-T2 capable Freeview receiver. I have hmmed and hared about whether to bother installing a TV aerial for the last few years or if it is just a waste of money getting it installed only for it in a few years to be obsolete. I think there is already talk about shutting down one of the muxes that the BBC and ITV channels use on Freeview so I think the writing is on the wall there.
Switzerland got rid of its terrestrial TV in 2019. Potentially you can still watch German, Austrian, French, and/or Italian terrestrial TV (if you're close enough to the border) due to broadcasting spillover, but actual Swiss television (which mainly consists of the national public service plus - from what I gather - really only the fewest of language-area channels but mainly canton-based channels) is only available on satellite and cable.
I think they should set up a website where you can just watch all the channels or the programs provided by each channel will pop up that the beginning of the show and in the middle with ads and that the end of the show ads and the program channel
The HD channels appear to have been shutdown in my area. I live about 9 miles from Crystal Palace, and sometimes I can’t get any terrestrial TV channels at all.
Even if you never watch live TV broadcast if you have a receiver (even if not connected to a dish or aerial) or an internet connection you can see content via BBC iPlayer and proving that you don't watch that either is impossible. Having the equipment means you have the potential to view and need to pay a licence fee.
@@geraldmcmullon2465 That used to be how it was but not any longer. You just have to watch (or record) live broadcast tv or use iPlayer. They will have to show otherwise but you'd have a job on your hands at the Crown Court.
Biggest thing on both freeview, freesat and sky, virgin etc yes they gave you more choice but the quality of the programs in the most part rapidly declined. Also more choice doesn't make it easier to use.
They have been dropping many HD channels and switching them to a very muddy SD. I believe this is due to the government needing the space for 5G. It really sucks
Freeview will be around for a while yet. As long as there is a cohort of people who can’t (or won’t) consume tv online through streaming services and catch-up, the service will be forced to continue. The government won’t allow it to end, until those people are no longer around. It may be a much reduced service though.
Freeview is great when the other services fail, ie: no broadband no nothing. That was one of the main drivers for not getting Sky Glass (+ can't record!)
I still use freeview to record the programs I want to watch at a later date and will use the "I"player for things I have missed. I got rid of SKY years ago as wasn't worth the price if freeview/freesat go so will my T.V
On Demand is the way to go. With live TV you are paying twice to watch in the UK. Firstly the TV service and then the TV licence. When the BBC was the only broadcaster this made sense but Television has moved on and watching on demand gives freedom where live is stuck to a time table.
I've never really seen the point of Freeview. A great big wobbly aerial perched on the roof. Or a small satellite dish on a wall giving way more channels and higher quality. Difficult choice eh? And since there are free services on satellite and paid for services on Freeview, there is nothing in the name. Many (not all and not us) people have good enough broadband that they don't need satellite either. Freeview is just an obsolete and costly delivery service catering mainly for internet refuseniks.
The idea was that by moving to digital, they could offer more channels. This meant that people who didn't want a paid subscription service, could get more channels, whilst only paying the licence fee. So instead of 5 analogue channels, they got 30 or so digital channels (at launch). Also, they could use their existing tv aerial and just purchase a box for a few quid. Or at the time, some got one for free. Satellite came out in the late 80's/early 90's and required a bigger dish, than Sky use now. This was because Sky used Astra 19.2e (now used by Germany) but moved to 28.2e when Sky digital launched. I think there is a common misconception that when you mention satellite, people think Sky and paid services. However, satellite offers more HD channels than Freeview and if you live in a light area (where not all 6 multiplexes are broadcast from a transmitter) then satellite wins.
But digital broadcasting will be going around 40 years by then and when you look at vhf and uhf analogue tv, they lasted around 40 years before being replaced. It’s not hard to see that freeview will be replaced by something more technically advanced. If traditional OTA tv survives then it must move to a more efficient codec to allow the crowded airwaves to be used more efficiently.
It's terrible Freeview apart from a few of the so called "lesser channels" there's far to many ads and it isn't Free either..it's a shame because old TV everyone used to see the same thing at the same time and always talk about last night's TV the next day at the water cooler or whatever. Those days are gone.
At least, 8 years ago, feeeview was still alive and well. And thinking about it, it is now too! We use freeview in our house, and I have a smart freeview box which I bought from maplin ages ago, which works fantastically for my needs. One way or another, people still watch over the air broadcasting, be it with either a cable service like Sky, or NTL/Virgin, or freeview. Analog switch off happened in 2011 and as far as I was aware, a huge majority of people still watched analog telly. I am sure freeview will keep on going for years to come. If analog television lasted, what, 70 years, digital broadcasting will be around for awhile.
Where I lived it was 09, and most people had switched to a digital box by 07 or 08 at the latest. Those few who held out were those who had such a noisy analogue picture that the box just refused to work. But of course I'm sure that's not representative of the whole nation either.
I get TV through Satellite , so i think Satellite tv and watching tv without an ariel should be the way forward. but their has been no talk about Freeview being axed,
It depends on access and reliability of the internet in all homes, and it requires high quality fibre to the home or line of signt type access to 5G/6G masts for high speed across multiple devices at the same time for multiple user locations to prevent download speeds becoming poor. There is unlikely to be 100% coverage unless sat coverage becomes financially viable to those who cannot access these services by any other means.
The elephant in the room hasn’t been explained there isn’t enough frequency space to give 5G, 6G, 7G and so on in the future. Also all the transmitters up and down the country are expensive to run and there lease is up in the next 10 years. People viewing habits has changed too the under 40s with program schedules people aren’t interested any more? On demand and streaming seems to be the way forward. As I have been in the industry for more then 40 years, unfortunately as soon as satellite tv started it was the beginning of the end of the terrestrial tv aerial. There’s too much choice Netflix, Amazon Prime, Virgin, Sky, all the streaming on demand formats. The amount of tv aerials I see dangerous hanging of people’s roof tops. They are not watch Freeview👍
This applies to Freesat in the same way. I have switched from listening to radio from FM and Freesat to internet radio and BBC Sounds. With the BBC removing internet radio from TuneIn and many smart speaker devices I will not listen to broadcast radio. I stopped watching life broadcast TV some years ago. I record multiple channels. As BBC iPlayer now has content in full 1080p the need for that is also reduced. The +1 channels I only access when recording more than 4 programmes and so can time shift another by one hour. Not all the channels have a catch up service.
Never used freeview and haven't watched tv in some years. There is nothing left I want to watch to be honest. All my favorite shows are either gone or ruined ( I loved sci-fi shows ). The beeb was best for most of my life but in recent years their output put me off tv in general. I suspect the beeb needs to be much smaller and have pay linked to ratings. It needs to be a business not a gravy train but that is just my opinion.
I still have my original On-Digital box. Still in it's original packaging. It's up in the loft. Wonder if it will be on the Antiques Roadshow one day 😂.
I have Netflix, Disney+, Virgin media and i buy DVD/Bluray, But i still watch Freeview. I cant see freeview being phase out because sometimes broadband doesnt work! We also have unlimited broadband but my mum doesnt and is in an area where fibre doesn't exit so she has limited access.
I've never liked how misleading the name 'Freeview' is. It's absolutely not free, as watching any live TV requires a licence. I know you are pro TV licence Adam, but I would urge you consider looking at this topic from the opposing viewpoint. It's really not for everyone and the way it's enforced is troubling to say the least. Working class people who are typically left-leaning are far less likely to be afford to the licence fee or even want it. There's also the aggressiveness of TV Licensing and their threatening salesmen (who pretend to be "officers") Wanting to abolish the licence isn't a right-wing view, at all. It's simply an antiquated model and services like Amazon Video and Netflix offer much better value to consumers, without sending the boys round, if you choose to unsubscribe. The key thing is choice, and the BBC particularly need to start working for the billions of pounds they make, instead of expecting hand-outs. So many people think the licence is mandatory, and it's not.
The current model is bloated and antiquated. They need to move to a model where content is aggregated from across various ad-supported and pay platforms. Reduce the linear channels down so that there are just a handful of HD public broadcasters to fulfil the PSB remit and push the rest online but in a smart way. This could allow shopping channels to reinvent themselves too. They could pay for premium spaces in the EPG and partner with brands to produce longer form infomercials about their products. As long as traffic isn't forced to them and clearly highlighted as "Sponsored content"
Its seems strange that in this age of everything becoming wireless, the methods of TV / radio delivery are going from over the air transmission, (aerial / satellite) back to systems which are delivered over cables/ fibre optics.
I pay for RUclips Premium because I cannot stand adverts. Netflix, Disney+ and the extremely great value of Amazon. Only TV I'm watching atm is The Last of Us. The only reason I have Sky is for F1, no adverts during qualifying (only between the sessions) no adverts during the race, could not go back to ITV days. We missed Michael retiring from the Japanese GP in 2006 and their was that famous Football goal that happened during the break, embarrassing. Add free or I'm not interested, The Last of Us is the only exception in the last 5+ years!
I think this is completely ridiculous because freeveiw is only free if you don't have to pay for a TV licence that goes only to the BBC that you still have to pay by law even if you only watch freeveiw with no BBC content which is both unjust and stupid and shouldn't be a law in the first place
Interesting here in Australia as you said we have a similar model with networks still adding niche chs. Simulcasting of SD and HD chs seems hard to understand. Even then the HD is not great quality. Shopping networks are prevalent and I do know people who do use them? The live factor of items being demonstrated sways people. Many are aged or not computer literate or live in rural areas we’re access is not easy to purchase items. Over here probably 60% of new houses no longer have TV antennas as the majority of young people prefer to stream live TV rather then watch it via DTV. This figure Is increasing yearly as internet speed and 5G options improve most tv now unless they are cheapies are Smart Tv so this is only going to further erode FTA TV. Australia’s vast landscape makes the removal of DTV is very hard but not impossible
If it ain't broke why fix it. It's sounds like Freeview is not liked because it's free. The commercial TV channels raise their revenue by adverts many of which appear on Freeview, so some payment must have been already agreed.
Terrestrial television will end as will the BBC & ITV, they will become BBC iPlayer and ITVx as they advertising these options so much. Free view will sadly disappear as it only offers repeats and produces so little new material, iPlayer and ITVx are more than capable of handling, new and live programmes as well the companies back catalogue
I read an article a few years ago that there are too many channels in the digital age, a lot of channels will go off air as there are not enough eyeballs to sustain it, apparently music channels are the hardest hit especially if they are dedicated to niche like heavy metal/alternative rock, like the most recent example is scuzz going off air in 2018 even though kerrang TV is going I think it will be a matter of time for kerrang to disappear off air
The trouble with Freeview is that it is errrm NOT free. It is shackled by the BBC tax fee to watch. If BBC went subscription only (and here the BBC has an enormous opportunity to improve its viewing), then free of the licence fee, more people no doubt will watch. More viewers, more ad revenue, which hopefully would be translated into a reduction in the enormity of ads in addition to improving their content from the roller coaster of boring cosmetic type ads. I believe Freeview does have a future, but it must be free from the BBC.
Don't longer watch freeview I watch Sky Q with some subscriptions ie Netflix if I was if I didn't have BSkyB channels etc I'd would get Freesat as I hate being stuck with lack of extra bbc channels. So can watch what ever part of the region sky and Freesat have all these channels.
I think freeview as it is will probs dee off in the next 10 years or so (especially shopping channels and possibly specialist channels and the repeats ones). But I think there's always room for bbc1,2,itv, itv2 and channel 4 to keep broadcasting in some form while still taking a much greater plunge into streaming/on demand stuff. Basically, keep the main channels but cut out the unnecessary fluff.
I still use Freeview only really the main channels such as BBC 1, STV etc for the evening news, soaps and when sport is being broadcast, As others have said Freeview has limited bandwidth a lot of the channels that are SD have quite poor picture and poor sound quality, Freeview's HD content is limited also due too bandwidth. Streaming content is the future but then some older people may not have broadband so they would still use there rooftop aerial for TV, I think Freeview would need too continue in some form at least too cater for everyone
If you only like to watch British shows then Freeview is the way to go but if like me and you prefer US Imports then Sky,Virgin/ Streaming Service like Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ is where they all go and the few US Shows on Freeview channels get treated poorly like Channel 5 and E4
I always record programs as I'm appt to fall asleep! It took a long time to get digital TV ie. Freeview reliable (I was in the industry), I sometimes use 'catch up' via internet and invariably it's a pain, freezes, drops out etc. Not a good way at all I find, most frustrating!
I'd be more upset about the fate of the BBC if their output was still of a high quality like it was in the past, but it's not. The BBC always seemed to have a layer of class and polish that other broadcasters didn't have, but nowadays, they're pretty much on the same level of an ITV or even Channel 5. Ru Paul's Drag Race. The Wheel, Mrs Brown's Boys etc. It's just lowest common denominator rubbish. Unfortunately, only with the death of The Queen did we see a return to a classier, more muted, more fundamentally British BBC, rather than the crass, loud BBC that we've been forced to endure for decades now.
They should start making the day time soap operas again but instead of targeting stay at home house wives this time around they should target unemployed and bored Muslims and Africans. That's how to update this model for modern Britain.
The monthly payment is quite expensive... basically.... So... and most people don't watch these pre-made programmes but want real-time sports gaming and entertainments. So... and they are paying it, to hold, and not even necessarily watch it. From this perspective, is it any more economical really? It isn't ? Not truly ? So.....
The BBC has thousands of hours of classic TV that should be available to the people who actually bloody paid for it.
Not as straightforward as you might think. There are copyright and other issues which require the BBC to negotiate in order to show old programmes. They can’t just load everything they have.
@@CM73878 but they can put behind a pay wall on Britbox if they want?
It is. It’s called iPlayer
One of the latest trends I've noticed across the main channels has been to keep a show on air all year round (think Bargain Hunt or The Chase for example). They do it by mixing in new episodes with repeats, without announcing the fact on air. Presumably this saves a fair amount as they don't need to produce another show to fill the slot when a run comes to an end and not everyone will notice they're watching a repeat if a few years have passed since the previous airing. It's become much more obvious in the last few years with socially distanced pandemic era episodes mixed with pre and post pandemic ones.
The end of freeview Would Definitely damage a lot of households in the uk due to the fact of the current cost of living crisis and a lot of people don’t have the money for sky or virgin or now.
The "cost of living crisis" will be over long before any changes to Freeview are made. Economic slumps are a fact of modern economies and every decade has one. Any changes that could happen during this particular slump would not be greater then the £160 defacto annual subscription you have to pay to legally watch Freeview anyway.
@@KingEurope1 the £160 is still required for streaming a live broadcast, so people who watch football on Amazon prime have to pay £300 per year to watch it
@KingEurope1 ok so what about when the next cost of living crisis comes along and there is no freeview.
@@memediatek my TV works perfect without paying £160.
Damage? Improve more like.
I think Freeview will be around for sometime yet. BT has a lot of work to do to get acceptable bandwidth to every house in the UK so you can watch streaming without the dreadful buffering
Who are BT ? 🤣
@@marcushull12 british telecommunications?
It's funny how when it comes to building or paying for new infrastructure BT suddenly becomes "British telecom" again and we're all paying for a national network out of government money where the people who really benefit from it are talk talk, EE, Sky etc and that other BT, the one that gets to keep all the profits. Like the water companies who were meant to take responsibility for upgrading the victoriana pipes.
@@patrickvanspliff6010 It's funny how when it comes to building or paying for new infrastructure BT suddenly becomes "British telecom" again and we're all paying for a national network out of government money where the people who really benefit from it are talk talk, EE, Sky etc and that other BT, the one that gets to keep all the profits. Like the water companies who were meant to take responsibility for upgrading the victoriana pipes.
Just get a super box elite and u will be good 👍
I don’t want linear tv gone!!
Just hope they dont carve up DTT and Freesat (FTA Sat), and leave only a small section for the traditional 5 FTA channels. The output on the 5 channels is truly dredful.
If you have a smart TV, you will get extra IP services like Samsung Tv plus or LG Channels where you would need an internet connection to watch. I don't know if these will stay the same with Freeview Play or the Freesat equivalent rebranded as Freely, or if they will become Freely branded with Freeview Play and the Freesat equivalent being shut down.
Either way it's gong to cost more to watch what is currently FTA on FTA or Freesat beyond the traditional 5 terrestrial channels with you needing an internet connection to watch. Freely is more an improvement of Freeview Play with the FTA on Freeview and Freesat being slashed dramatically.
Dreading the day where your internet cnnection could cut out when you're watching Freely, plus forking out for internet connecrltion just to acceas Freely (those without the internet that is).
I remember watching Blue Peter about year 2000 and they suggested the future would have something we now know as streaming but for all old archived TV. That hasn't happened for ALL old TV, but obviously has for new content.
Britbox is the closest they've got to that
I went to the BBC exhibition in Cardiff City Hall about it the same year. There was free internet access there at a time when it cost £5 an hour in cyber cafes. Just before the libraries offered it for free but with restricted access and often juat an hour at a time.
Freeview is very useful just for simple viewing, and also I am able to easily DVD record shows so it disappearing would definitely end most chances of recording. You also make a very valid point as those less savvy are able to use modern equipment.
The actual cost of having Freeview or Freesat work out about the same. Some people automatically think that, having a satellite dish, means subscription. There are actually more channels and more HD channels on Freesat than Freeview.
freeview is not free if you are watching live tv.or if you record live or programs it is still not free it is a catch to get you to have a free box to pay for the license .
@@XENONEOMORPH1979 So basically, you can't use Freeview.
@@wisteela 50/50 as there will be live on the freeview which will give the hunchbacks reason for knocking on your door
we do not have any free or virgin free boxes nothing
we have a tv that we do not use so our grandson can play his games when he visits that is it
then it is switched off
nothing is connected neither sky
just watch you tube or play games for a few hours that is it.the rest i go out do gardening or take a walk more of a active people here .
@@XENONEOMORPH1979 Yes, if you can't/don't receive, you don't need one. That's my situation. My TV is used as a monitor.
I fear they will add the licence Tax to something like council tax so you are given no choice if top pay it or not. I've always said that its unfair that you still need to pay the licence Tax if you only want to watch other channels that are supposed to be free. It should only apply to watching the BBC.
That’s what they did in Sweden a few years ago - went from licence fee to government funding.
More than likely in the future Freeview will be turned into a streaming service rather than something that is received by a TV ariel
this is happening
I'm pretty shocked it hasn't happened already. Digital UK/Everyone TV are hopefully working on this, as Freeview is stuck with the double whammy of having extremely limited bandwidth and an extremely inefficient video codec, making it not fit for purpose in a TV market where 50 inch TVs cost £300 and make heavily compressed standard def broadcasts look like sludge. Freesat also has a expiry date almost entirely dictated by Sky and the rapidly decreasing economic feasibility of leasing satellite capacity as a broadcaster.
As on-demand gets more and more prevalent as well, it will become practically impossible to enforce the "due prominence" that gives the BBC it's meal ticket without a free open-platform that isn't half-arsed and some-what disjointed from linear like Freeview Play is. iPlayer will not get priority over commericial streaming services who will pay for prominence and pay commissions.
Maybe - But it needs to work far better than it does at the moment. Those IPTV channels on there now are awful to navigate, especially with the time needed for them to appear on the screen.
The only difference is encryption.
@@KingEurope1 it's still ~30Mbps IIRC, albeit MPEG2 like a DVD. That's still equivalent to ~15Mbps in H264, while Netflix only gives you ~4 in H264.
Of course ~15Mbps H264 is more like ~7Mbps in H265/VP9 and that is becoming a lot more comparable for a lot less bandwidth.
But when compared to the (again IIRC) ~60Mbps H264 for Freeview HD, that's still pretty decent considering it's rare to see ~30Mbps H265 HD online streaming.
Maybe they should just retire DVB and switch to DVB2. Or a new DVB3 with AV1.
I’m 19 and would rather watch live linear TV over Netflix
I think TV will start becoming more like Sky Glass and Stream with linear channels existing for people who don't want to watch anything specifically or for big TV moments like Doctor Who, with on demand content along side it. Moving TV to online only like Sky is doing will be a huge change, and they can get rid of the shopping channels, +1 channels, etc. since there wouldn't be a need.
Sky Glass is shit, if they move to online only and do away with Sky Q I’m out, the time delay on sports broadcasts is horrendous.
Freeview I think will continue to exist. There might be less channels, but I still believe there is a huge demand for it.
Its crap. There's nothing of note on it. Roku and other streaming channels knock spots of it.
@@1701_FyldeFlyer why do people actually have smart boxes anyway literally every tv made post 2014 is a smart tv with a usable interface to get RUclips/web/app access better than switching remotes and messing with inputs
@@1701_FyldeFlyer and you pay for that. Mug.
I think Freeview is in a good position where the cost of living is affecting a lot of us. Families have to cut down on the nice to haves of Sky and Virgin to make ends meet.
Considering that the next UK Government, which will probably take effect within the next two years, but no later than 25 January 2025, is likely to be Labour, I don't think they'll be too enthusiastic on what the Tories want to do with the BBC. While I am not too enthusiastic on more and more live tv being internet-based (more apps to steal your data with, wooo!), I'll begrudgingly accept it if it's still free to air, and most people are wired up for broadband internet.
Yep. Suspect the licence fee has a much longer life than you might think.
I would imagine full fibre rollout to every home would be a requirement for such a switch-off under Labour. At least, I'd hope so.
The bbc is a subscription service, the difference from normal subscriptions is we have no choice
While we still have issues with the time delay on live streaming, most noticeable on live sport events, there will always be a requirement for live broadcasting. As I view this video, I am (coincidentally) setting up a USB DVB-T2 dongle to work with Linux and have also got DAB+ to work too. My worry is that the valuable higher MHz frequencies will be snapped up by the mobile phone companies for billions that the broadcasters simply can't compete with, satellite broadcasting will succumb to the Internet and we will have no free-to-air television or radio platforms.
The UHF spectrum 470 upwards can be used for better mobile phone services. Anything below that, is basically useless. Apart from radio. However, AM radio is closing so once they’ve gone, it can’t be used for anything else. Same goes for FM and DAB.
Radio from Freeview and Freesat is better (larger bit rate and in more in stereo instead of mono). Internet radio is higher quality and BBC Sounds (as a catch up service) have 320 bit per second rates compared to 64 mono and 128 bps of DABs and 128kps Freesat/Freeview.
@@geraldmcmullon2465 In theory, DAB could use more kbp/s but they choose not to. Instead, opting for more stations. This in turn, means that the stations do not sound as good. If the stations on DAB were to change to DAB+ then the stations can use an even higher bitrate. Again, as you can see from the Global stations (Heart 80’s etc) they opt for a lower 32 or 40kbp/s so more stations can be broadcast. As listeners, we want choice. Unfortunately that’s why some stations sound better than others.
In my opinion, FM sounds the best. It is just a shame it’s full of BBC stations.
I also still listen to 5 Live and TalkSPORT on medium wave. It is better for live commentary. There is a four second delay on DAB, whereas medium wave, is almost near live.
They were already snapped up with the COM7 and COM8 multiplexes closing
Back in 1988 Star Trek TNG had Data tell us that TV did not survive much beyond 2040. This was the golden age of TV, it seemed a crazy suggestion. Fast forward 35 years and it seems increasingly unlikely that TV will make it to 2040
I've never owned one at all. Just use my laptop and second monitor if I want to stream something. I find TVs in old peoples living rooms weird. They just leave them on all the time.
That was one clever mf robot.
Farewell Freeview
Great video free view is good for older people that may not have Internet access.
And for people can't afford Internet
Freeview is good for people when camping or while otherwise away from home, where downloads would be too costly. Remember that Freeview is actually cheap since it echoes Freesat. Similarly, the +1 channels are just the channel, so probably don't cost too much on the scale of things (when compared to the cost of new or premade content).
I think we may see a mixture of subscription and government-funded, the government might pay for a few radio stations and the BBC news service, for example, ut if people want the other, non-funded channels, they'll subscribe. We may well see a return to having the basic 2 BBC channels alongside various ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 channels, for as long as the advertising funding remains.
Myself, I opted out of paying the license since I was watching just a couple of shows a week and found that I could happily live without live TV completely, so I now do so. I'm quite happy without it and iPlayer.
In Ireland, we have an equivalent called Saorview, which is practically the same. No UK channels or spillover though, except for Sky News and Challenge (for some reason)
Sky News and Challenge (which is owned by Sky) have quite a significant amount of advertisements for Sky products during their breaks. The strategy is likely to expose free-to-air viewers to a drip feed of "This is what you could be watching instead" in-between the news and old episodes of The Chase.
And specifically for Sky News (and Sky Arts in the UK) it also serves to increase the prestige of the brand, which helps subconsciously push sales of Sky TV and other products like Sky Mobile.
@@KingEurope1 Exactly, which ends up being totally redundant since most Saorview users in Ireland are seniors who don't want to pay for anything more than the TV licence
I still record Freeview on a box with a built in hard drive I don’t want it to go but it still amazes me that it’s still not all HD
Showing old 1960's films and 80's TV shows like Minder etc in HD is pointless as they were never filmed in HD back then. If you were steaming this content in pseudo HD it would be eating data for no good reason.
@@bigbabatunde1218 actually most TV shows back in the 80's (like Minder) were shot on film and if they still have the original negatives, then they can go up to 4K depending on the quality of the film stock. Just look at the HD remastered versions of Friends and Star Trek TOS & TNG. All those shows were shot and edited on film, even the special effects. The most recent US show to be remastered fully was Murder She Wrote in glorious HD and released as a Blu Ray box set.
@@chindleymuffin People in the industry had no concept of 4K back in the 60's, 70's and 80's so didn't film anything in 4K or HD even. What you have been watching in remasters is digital trickery in the form of fancy up scaling. They even did it with old Laurel and Hardy films from the 1930's by putting them in colour.
Tv is mostly for people who are too old to browse the internet, and don't know how to stream pirated content. The only time I'll stick the telly on is to make sure none of the soaps are on before I phone my mum.
I do think that with Freeview and Freesat being owned by Digital UK, I do see the service merging at some point
The future of Freesat is interesting as well as Freeview. I use Freesat, in an area where the old UHF was handled by a “repeater” transmitter, that ended up with limited Freeview compared with Freesat. The unit I have is at least 15 years old now. Lots of changes on Freesat, with many more channels using HD than at the start.
I have a lot of nostalgia for terrestrial TV but I do see why it makes more sense to obsolete this method of television delivery and that the frequencies can be put to better multi-purpose use these days. Freeview, you will be missed!
no, not everyone has the internet, it shouldnt be assumed they do, just as you shouldnt assume everyone has a smartphone, or even any mobile phone .. shutting down over air tv restricts choice/availability, not increases it ,, cost is a big factor as internet costs much more than the licence fee...
I'd rather have an obsolete method of delivery that guarantees me live tv coverage that doesn't pause than a new method that's a minute behind and prone to freezing. I subscribe to Eurosport which I love but if the same sporting event is on BBC at the same time I'll watch the BBC coverage instead because it is always ahead and hassle free.
@@B-A-L yep, thats another issue, some may have internet but not fast enough, or have a download allowance limit, the existing technology works well so why scrap it? bet i know, they dont want to pay for the upkeep of the transmitters, i've read the bbc want to stop ALL over air transmissions, radio as well as tv, eventually, everything via internet ...
@@B-A-L flashbacks to early-00s pubgoers complaining the satellite coverage of football was 10-30 seconds behind the terrestrial analogue coverage, and the same again in 06-09 during the digital switchover for terrestrial!
Honestly, me I don't mind a bit of a delay. But what drove me up the wall was how every Freeview box had a _different_ delay, so a house that was previously in-sync had an awful echo effect post-switchover.
I think it will be around in a reduced form for at least the next 15 years possibly longer just because of the public service commitment. Many pensioners, people in rural communities and the poorest will still be reliant on it for some to come. Longer term a completely internet based solution is inevitable but may need further regulation or standardisation to make it accessible. Something like a standardised freeview version of sky stream that gives linear channels by just pressing a channel number might accelerate the change.
no it should not be inevitable, not everyone has the internet, not everyone wants or needs it, it shouldnt be a necessity for basic 'broadcast' radio and tv , just as not everyone has a smartphone,
@@andygozzo72 : When the entire world is also hoarding and fighting for your attentions as well. No.. you don't want the internet. Cos watching a TV for your own enjoyment is no more, without actually being sold, or targetted in some ways !!! So no.... Not really.
Not had a tv licence for 12 years best think I’ve ever did
I think for the whole accessibility thing should be the main reason why it stays, some people (often of the older generation) usually aren't used to using streaming services (although my grandmother, she's 74, and likes watching shows on Netflix). Also, taking into consideration that there are still areas in the UK that have little to no internet access for streaming services to be useful, really remote places that are like no man's land, they rely on television as a lifeline of sorts.
Also, watching a streamed sports game like a rugby match or football really takes away from the live essence that you get from watching it in real time, usually there's about a two second delay when streaming it.
Live TV is actually around 5-10 seconds behind a live broadcast. Streaming is nearer a minute or so. Have a look at when Amazon stream Premier League or when BBC iPlayer streamed the Euros and World Cup. Some people said their stream was 90 seconds behind live tv.
Age doesn't have to do with it at all. It's interest that has to do with it. The internet as we know it and digital started in the 90's of the 20th century. The current old generation was part of it, back then. They didn't all of a sudden stop knowing about, just cause their old
@@dutchgamer842 Mate their are still people from the 30s and 20s still here that have never even used the internet or even used netflix and have no desire to you cant force them to use it either maybe in another30 -40 years then the next generation of old people will know how to use it i mean im nearly 50 so im going to be the next generation of old people and i know how to use the internet and i know how to work netflix and others and i know we need to change with the times but the current generation of old people some still dont know how to use the internet or netflix so they wont forget about them
@@nickda1 Clearly you don't understand
The problem with Freeview is the way it is transmitted, through the old fashioned TV transmitters. Their digital signals can be quite sloppy, depending where you live. Old analogue days those transmitters were better, as analogue provided you with a reasonable signal even if you were in a fringe area of reception. Digital means an "all or nothing" approach, with signal quality pixelating if the signal drops. Satellite free TV through Freesat is the best option for free to air TV. Signal always excellent.
And digital SD services give a poor quality picture even when the signal is strong - distinctly poorer than analogue TV as you're limited to about 480 pixels across with noticeable compression artefacts giving a fuzzy picture that lacks detail. Even the compressed version of HD that we get on broadcast TV often suffers from pixelation on fast-changing images.
@@saltwell Just shows that analogue had it's plus side. We got more channels, but terrible quality in both content of the channels and their signals. I remember back around 1993 when I was 8, we had a portable TV in the kitchen with a small indoor aerial placed on top of the set, and we receive perfectly reasonable TV quality of all channels available. Now in 2023, my TV in the kitchen could never pick up Freeview with an indoor aerial, even though we are only 2 miles from the nearest transmitter. My kitchen TV is now used for streaming, I watch iPlayer, ITVX, All4, Netflix on it.
@@johnking5174 Digital signal, not analogue. The past analogue signal was restricted to 5 channels.
@@bigbabatunde1218 I said analogue had it's plus side in the old days. Signal quality in terms of how it degraded was better during the analogue years. Today, the digital signal immediate fails as soon as it falls below a certain level. Analogue was snowy, ghosting, but you could still watch the channel
@@johnking5174 Yes, I remember. It's just the way you went from talking about analogue to digital in your post without clarifying.
*"Just shows that analogue had it's plus side.*
*We got more channels but terrible quality"* etc. Not on analogue signal we didn't.
I haven't used Freeview, or any digital TV for over ten years.
Just switched from sky to Freeview due to the cost of living crisis
I've had Freeview before but in last 4 years I had sky however like many had to make a choice of axing it to save some money
I think cost of living crisis
Only good thing out of it is more going back to Freeview
So I do hope it still here for long time to come
"Freeview" over 100 channels and nothing on, is what we used to say before we stopped paying for a TV license and took our aerial down for good, the birds no longer sit on the aerial and crap on our car in the driveway its a win win situation , there is plenty of content online to stream in non live TV, the radio makes up for live news during the day. why wait for a programme to come on at a certian time of day? when you can watch what you want when you want to streaming the content online.
That article is very flawed. If it's believed that a subscription model work or that a guardian style process we also work, then it's not being logical. I think the BBC will transition to one which is funded through general taxation and not through a licence fee. Advertising model won't work because it then takes revenue away from commercial broadcasters. I also think the change of government from Boris Johnson to Rishi Sunak means that we have seen a different perspective on broadcasting.
I agree that a voluntary system is heavily flawed. There is also the option to include a small levy on Internet bills similar to how other European countries fund public broadcasting.
It won't be funded with taxes.
I don't want it to go 😪 I was a freeview kid and still am 😂❤️
It's a death by a thousand cuts. Very noticeable after the demise of Forces TV.
Noooo freeview was my childhood I don’t want it to go 😢😢😢
Two channels, black and white, VHF TV was my childhood… I'm so very glad that's gone! 😁😁😁
The future of TVs will be like the LG range with both Freeview and freesat as well the streaming service and hdmi for sky/virgin and BT tv . I think 🤔 Freeview will survive but it will much smaller than what it is now
Honestly I think freeview will eventually adapt. Its thr channels and streaming services who right now are struggling g to get the idea that they are churning out generic meaningless content. Years ago it was challenging, intelligent and served a purpose. Nowadays its very much the same of the same to fill time. Theres no risks taken.
I miss Sky Sports News on Freeview. You should do a history of News Channels of the UK.
I used to play Freeview in the kitchen, usually old westerns and blokes stuff but I dropped the TV licence.
If live TV on Freeview is under threat, would that also apply to the (not inconsiderable overlapping number of) channels on satellite also? After all, the only real difference between the two is the delivery system... if it's dead on one, surely the other wouldn't last much longer given the expense of replacement (I remember the fuss caused by the analogue switch-off well, and it would be history repeating itself).
That satellite is cheaper to broadcast on then Freeview is an indictment of how unfit for purpose Freeview has been for over a decade, and how zero foresight was given to it, just continuing the old rope set up in the mid 90s that's well beyond it's best before date. An extraordinary amount of bandwidth is wasted by showing standard def channels compressed with a codec almost 30 years old and designed to run on extremely cheap hardware of the Windows 3.1 era.
You’re right, freeview is just the delivery method. Not a content producer itself. Freeview ending just means those channels don’t have that method to be delivered.
It’ll be up to each broadcaster what they do without that service. Some may continue via things like Sky, some may stream only (UKTV (which includes channels like Dave) already has the UKTV Play streaming service. Some may close if they think they can’t sustain on other delivery platforms.
There is a difference. Freeview uses the UHF spectrum and is subject to interference from mobile phone signals and atmospherics. HD is as good of a resolution you will see. 4K is not possible. Hence, why BBC use the iPlayer. Apart from the three main multiplexes (BBC A, BBC B HD and D3&4) which broadcast in 704/720x576 SD and 1080 HD respectively, the other three muxes (ARQ A, ARQ B and ARQ C) use a 544x576 SD resolution and a lower bitrate. This is to offer viewers the choice of channels but at the cost of a lower resolution/bitrate. These channels look awful on a much bigger TV. They could broadcast 720x576 SD, but the choice of channels would be reduced.
Satellite, comes from space and is not subject to any interference. It also has better coverage than you would get from just using a tv aerial. It is preferred by those who live in rural areas, where they could only get the main three multiplexes from Freeview.
I agree, that if Freeview gets turned off, then Freesat/Sky/ satellite would surely follow. Sky are already trialling this with Sky Glass and the Sky Stream box.
Fibre broadband is becoming more available to people in rural areas. However, Starlink and other alternatives are available.
Satellite us
@@L1RW Actually in some countries there are 4K channels on DTT
Freeview (100) is technically the most-watched channel in my house, since I always leave it on there whenever I’ve finished so I can never be startled when I start the TV by a sudden loud programme, and the recording/disc-reading box is a separate functionality of the remote.
You'll still get startled when you change channels from 100 though. It's the volume control you want to be using.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Yes, but the point is that I will be in control of the moment the channels change, whereas how long it takes the box to be ready to start playing is not within my control.
@@DrWhoFanJ In my experience, TV's have a very poor audio compression attack threshold before kicking in, therefore letting nasty peaks and screams through with scant regard to the viewer's welfare.
@@bigbabatunde1218 I mean, that may be true, but it has absolutely no relevance here whatsoever. It isn’t the noise itself that’s the issue; it’s the noise *randomly starting* that is.
@@DrWhoFanJ Can't have intrusive noise if the volume is set at one or two above minimum though. Channel hopping is the worst as the mild compression circuitry can't kick in quick enough and it's just a screeching rabble as a result.
Unless I'm deliberately listening to music coming from the TV then I keep the volume down as low as I can get away and just go with subtitles wherever possible.
I had enough of screeching no marks blaring from TV's years ago.
I can see in the not to distant future terrestrial TV will return to five over the air channels. With all the other frequencies Freeview broadcasts on being auctioned off.
I think you've come at this from the wrong angle - Freeview is the de facto replacement for terrestrial analogue tv and I believe the system itself is only for EPG and marketing of the terrestrial FTA TV. For example, the BBC has its own transmitters, which are separate from the ones used by commercial broadcasters - this is completely independent of Freeview itself, which just sits on top and organises the channels and EPG for a nice end-user experience. The main threat to terrestrial FTA TV is that it uses a big chunk of valuable radio spectrum, which the telecoms companies would love to use. The recent talk has been about moving FTA TV to online-only, but my main concern is that this relies on the internet, and everyone having a connection - the potential for cyber terrorism and cyber warfare could render the entire population without any means of communication or information, should we be wholly reliant...
... on the internet. Keeping FTA TV and radio signals over-the-air would give some level of contingency should the worst happen. There is also the argument that the internet requires a paid subscription and not everyone has it, nor wants it, so some level of over the air broadcast would be required. My suggestion would be that should telecoms providers take over the part of the spectrum that Freeview currently occupies, they would be required to facilitate 5G FTA broadcasts (ie one-way IPTV) of these channels which would be receivable by set-top-boxes and mobile devices. Modern video compression techniques would allow for considerably less bandwidth requirement than the current DVB broadcasts utilised by Freeview.
I still use Freeview but I usually record everything I'm planning to watch rather than sticking to the TV schedules. What's disappointing is how the number of HD channels have declined in the past 2-3 years. At one point there were 3 DVB-T2 multiplexes carrying a number of HD channels and now we're just down to one.
Considering that the majority of homes now have HD TVs, it seems a backwards step to be removing HD channels, they should really be shutting down the older SD channels in favour of their HD versions not the other way around. Like the digital switchover where they turned off all the analogue signals, maybe it's time for an SD to HD switchover. Sky has done something similar recently, all their BBC1 regionals are now HD only. I don't think Freeview should go quite in that direction, it should keep at least the main 5 channels in SD for legacy equipment that can't decode the HD signals, but the likes of ITV2, 3, 4, Film4, E4 etc should start getting an HD upgrade.
ITV 2,3 and 4 are free to air on satellite. They launched earlier this year. Sky booted them out of the sub club and ITV X stream the channels in HD as standard. It is only a matter of time before more channels go HD, but I believe it will be on satellite and not on freeview DVB-T2.
@@L1RW I wonder if satellite will go before Freeview. As Sky seems to be pushing more towards receiving their content online. First it was Sky Glass, now it's Sky Stream.
@@jkmac625 well skys deal runs out in 2028. So they have until then, to either continue or pull out. I imagine channels will stay free to air, providing that the viewing figures are still strong.
I think the trend is pretty clear now. There will come a time sometime in the next 20 years where if you still want to watch broadcast television it will either be satellite or cable. There is already the BBC in recent weeks and months switching to HD on satellite(Sky and Freesat). So I think eventually BBC SD channels will be switched off much sooner than 2036 or whatever year it is. I hope most people now have a DVB-T2 capable Freeview receiver. I have hmmed and hared about whether to bother installing a TV aerial for the last few years or if it is just a waste of money getting it installed only for it in a few years to be obsolete. I think there is already talk about shutting down one of the muxes that the BBC and ITV channels use on Freeview so I think the writing is on the wall there.
Switzerland got rid of its terrestrial TV in 2019. Potentially you can still watch German, Austrian, French, and/or Italian terrestrial TV (if you're close enough to the border) due to broadcasting spillover, but actual Swiss television (which mainly consists of the national public service plus - from what I gather - really only the fewest of language-area channels but mainly canton-based channels) is only available on satellite and cable.
I think they should set up a website where you can just watch all the channels or the programs provided by each channel will pop up that the beginning of the show and in the middle with ads and that the end of the show ads and the program channel
The HD channels appear to have been shutdown in my area. I live about 9 miles from Crystal Palace, and sometimes I can’t get any terrestrial TV channels at all.
You have to pay for a tv license if you watch any live tv, not only the BBC. You can't tell the magistrate that you only watch the other channels.
Even if you never watch live TV broadcast if you have a receiver (even if not connected to a dish or aerial) or an internet connection you can see content via BBC iPlayer and proving that you don't watch that either is impossible. Having the equipment means you have the potential to view and need to pay a licence fee.
@@geraldmcmullon2465 That used to be how it was but not any longer. You just have to watch (or record) live broadcast tv or use iPlayer. They will have to show otherwise but you'd have a job on your hands at the Crown Court.
Only thing that's stopped it being killed off was the issue with broadband in some areas fast internet still does not exist.
Free view is our mainstream Television, it for us was the direct replacement for the original analog television.
Biggest thing on both freeview, freesat and sky, virgin etc yes they gave you more choice but the quality of the programs in the most part rapidly declined. Also more choice doesn't make it easier to use.
They have been dropping many HD channels and switching them to a very muddy SD. I believe this is due to the government needing the space for 5G.
It really sucks
Freeview will be around for a while yet. As long as there is a cohort of people who can’t (or won’t) consume tv online through streaming services and catch-up, the service will be forced to continue. The government won’t allow it to end, until those people are no longer around. It may be a much reduced service though.
Freeview is great when the other services fail, ie: no broadband no nothing. That was one of the main drivers for not getting Sky Glass (+ can't record!)
The wails of angst from caravan parks up and down the country is heartbreaking
I still use freeview to record the programs I want to watch at a later date and will use the "I"player for things I have missed.
I got rid of SKY years ago as wasn't worth the price
if freeview/freesat go so will my T.V
On Demand is the way to go. With live TV you are paying twice to watch in the UK. Firstly the TV service and then the TV licence. When the BBC was the only broadcaster this made sense but Television has moved on and watching on demand gives freedom where live is stuck to a time table.
I've never really seen the point of Freeview. A great big wobbly aerial perched on the roof. Or a small satellite dish on a wall giving way more channels and higher quality. Difficult choice eh? And since there are free services on satellite and paid for services on Freeview, there is nothing in the name. Many (not all and not us) people have good enough broadband that they don't need satellite either. Freeview is just an obsolete and costly delivery service catering mainly for internet refuseniks.
The idea was that by moving to digital, they could offer more channels. This meant that people who didn't want a paid subscription service, could get more channels, whilst only paying the licence fee. So instead of 5 analogue channels, they got 30 or so digital channels (at launch). Also, they could use their existing tv aerial and just purchase a box for a few quid. Or at the time, some got one for free.
Satellite came out in the late 80's/early 90's and required a bigger dish, than Sky use now. This was because Sky used Astra 19.2e (now used by Germany) but moved to 28.2e when Sky digital launched.
I think there is a common misconception that when you mention satellite, people think Sky and paid services. However, satellite offers more HD channels than Freeview and if you live in a light area (where not all 6 multiplexes are broadcast from a transmitter) then satellite wins.
But digital broadcasting will be going around 40 years by then and when you look at vhf and uhf analogue tv, they lasted around 40 years before being replaced. It’s not hard to see that freeview will be replaced by something more technically advanced. If traditional OTA tv survives then it must move to a more efficient codec to allow the crowded airwaves to be used more efficiently.
It's terrible Freeview apart from a few of the so called "lesser channels" there's far to many ads and it isn't Free either..it's a shame because old TV everyone used to see the same thing at the same time and always talk about last night's TV the next day at the water cooler or whatever. Those days are gone.
At least, 8 years ago, feeeview was still alive and well. And thinking about it, it is now too!
We use freeview in our house, and I have a smart freeview box which I bought from maplin ages ago, which works fantastically for my needs.
One way or another, people still watch over the air broadcasting, be it with either a cable service like Sky, or NTL/Virgin, or freeview.
Analog switch off happened in 2011 and as far as I was aware, a huge majority of people still watched analog telly. I am sure freeview will keep on going for years to come.
If analog television lasted, what, 70 years, digital broadcasting will be around for awhile.
Maplin! I bought lots of useful things from them; it’s a shame they went bust.
Where I lived it was 09, and most people had switched to a digital box by 07 or 08 at the latest. Those few who held out were those who had such a noisy analogue picture that the box just refused to work.
But of course I'm sure that's not representative of the whole nation either.
iPlayer, ITVX, All4 and My5 are the future of Freeview
I use all those now on my Amazon Fire TV it’s great I don’t have to keep turning on my Freeview Box now
I get TV through Satellite , so i think Satellite tv and watching tv without an ariel should be the way forward. but their has been no talk about Freeview being axed,
It depends on access and reliability of the internet in all homes, and it requires high quality fibre to the home or line of signt type access to 5G/6G masts for high speed across multiple devices at the same time for multiple user locations to prevent download speeds becoming poor. There is unlikely to be 100% coverage unless sat coverage becomes financially viable to those who cannot access these services by any other means.
The elephant in the room hasn’t been explained there isn’t enough frequency space to give 5G, 6G, 7G and so on in the future.
Also all the transmitters up and down the country are expensive to run and there lease is up in the next 10 years.
People viewing habits has changed too the under 40s with program schedules people aren’t interested any more? On demand and streaming seems to be the way forward.
As I have been in the industry for more then 40 years, unfortunately as soon as satellite tv started it was the beginning of the end of the terrestrial tv aerial.
There’s too much choice Netflix, Amazon Prime, Virgin, Sky, all the streaming on demand formats.
The amount of tv aerials I see dangerous hanging of people’s roof tops. They are not watch Freeview👍
This applies to Freesat in the same way.
I have switched from listening to radio from FM and Freesat to internet radio and BBC Sounds. With the BBC removing internet radio from TuneIn and many smart speaker devices I will not listen to broadcast radio.
I stopped watching life broadcast TV some years ago. I record multiple channels. As BBC iPlayer now has content in full 1080p the need for that is also reduced. The +1 channels I only access when recording more than 4 programmes and so can time shift another by one hour. Not all the channels have a catch up service.
Hopefully it won't come to an end. I've never seen much point in Sky and Virgin. Freeview is really all I've ever needed.
Never used freeview and haven't watched tv in some years. There is nothing left I want to watch to be honest. All my favorite shows are either gone or ruined ( I loved sci-fi shows ). The beeb was best for most of my life but in recent years their output put me off tv in general. I suspect the beeb needs to be much smaller and have pay linked to ratings. It needs to be a business not a gravy train but that is just my opinion.
I’m only 30 but I haven’t consumed terrestrial television in over a decade. I think most people my age are the same.
It's getting stupid sounds like in next few years you have to pay to watch anything and everything on subscription
You don't need a Freeview box. All televisions sold in Britain have had Freeview built-in for many years.
But Not able to record but recordable boxes are cheap though
Does anyone remember “On-Digital”?
The predecessor to ITV Digital.
I was at the road show when it & Sky Digital Was first announced back in 1998
I still have my original On-Digital box. Still in it's original packaging. It's up in the loft. Wonder if it will be on the Antiques Roadshow one day 😂.
My step-mum apparently uses QVC all the time. She wouldn’t have a clue about shopping online though.
I have Netflix, Disney+, Virgin media and i buy DVD/Bluray, But i still watch Freeview. I cant see freeview being phase out because sometimes broadband doesnt work! We also have unlimited broadband but my mum doesnt and is in an area where fibre doesn't exit so she has limited access.
In time, your mums broadband will improve. Or failing that, Starlink or something similar might be a better option.
I've never liked how misleading the name 'Freeview' is. It's absolutely not free, as watching any live TV requires a licence.
I know you are pro TV licence Adam, but I would urge you consider looking at this topic from the opposing viewpoint. It's really not for everyone and the way it's enforced is troubling to say the least.
Working class people who are typically left-leaning are far less likely to be afford to the licence fee or even want it. There's also the aggressiveness of TV Licensing and their threatening salesmen (who pretend to be "officers")
Wanting to abolish the licence isn't a right-wing view, at all. It's simply an antiquated model and services like Amazon Video and Netflix offer much better value to consumers, without sending the boys round, if you choose to unsubscribe.
The key thing is choice, and the BBC particularly need to start working for the billions of pounds they make, instead of expecting hand-outs.
So many people think the licence is mandatory, and it's not.
The current model is bloated and antiquated. They need to move to a model where content is aggregated from across various ad-supported and pay platforms. Reduce the linear channels down so that there are just a handful of HD public broadcasters to fulfil the PSB remit and push the rest online but in a smart way. This could allow shopping channels to reinvent themselves too. They could pay for premium spaces in the EPG and partner with brands to produce longer form infomercials about their products. As long as traffic isn't forced to them and clearly highlighted as "Sponsored content"
Its seems strange that in this age of everything becoming wireless, the methods of TV / radio delivery are going from over the air transmission, (aerial / satellite) back to systems which are delivered over cables/ fibre optics.
It's a free to air service not buggest live tv provider.
I pay for RUclips Premium because I cannot stand adverts. Netflix, Disney+ and the extremely great value of Amazon. Only TV I'm watching atm is The Last of Us.
The only reason I have Sky is for F1, no adverts during qualifying (only between the sessions) no adverts during the race, could not go back to ITV days. We missed Michael retiring from the Japanese GP in 2006 and their was that famous Football goal that happened during the break, embarrassing.
Add free or I'm not interested, The Last of Us is the only exception in the last 5+ years!
I think this is completely ridiculous because freeveiw is only free if you don't have to pay for a TV licence that goes only to the BBC that you still have to pay by law even if you only watch freeveiw with no BBC content which is both unjust and stupid and shouldn't be a law in the first place
The end of the BBC can't happen soon enough
Interesting here in Australia as you said we have a similar model with networks still adding niche chs. Simulcasting of SD and HD chs seems hard to understand. Even then the HD is not great quality. Shopping networks are prevalent and I do know people who do use them? The live factor of items being demonstrated sways people. Many are aged or not computer literate or live in rural areas we’re access is not easy to purchase items. Over here probably 60% of new houses no longer have TV antennas as the majority of young people prefer to stream live TV rather then watch it via DTV. This figure Is increasing yearly as internet speed and 5G options improve most tv now unless they are cheapies are Smart Tv so this is only going to further erode FTA TV. Australia’s vast landscape makes the removal of DTV is very hard but not impossible
Very good piece of work. I have subbed thank you for hard work.
Watching any Freeview channel requires a tv licences as does all live tv no matter what the broadcast medium
If it ain't broke why fix it. It's sounds like Freeview is not liked because it's free. The commercial TV channels raise their revenue by adverts many of which appear on Freeview, so some payment must have been already agreed.
Terrestrial television will end as will the BBC & ITV, they will become BBC iPlayer and ITVx as they advertising these options so much. Free view will sadly disappear as it only offers repeats and produces so little new material, iPlayer and ITVx are more than capable of handling, new and live programmes as well the companies back catalogue
Industry sycophant.
I read an article a few years ago that there are too many channels in the digital age, a lot of channels will go off air as there are not enough eyeballs to sustain it, apparently music channels are the hardest hit especially if they are dedicated to niche like heavy metal/alternative rock, like the most recent example is scuzz going off air in 2018 even though kerrang TV is going I think it will be a matter of time for kerrang to disappear off air
Freeview will never be done for until the government can guarantee buffer free wifi and internet for every household.
The trouble with Freeview is that it is errrm NOT free. It is shackled by the BBC tax fee to watch. If BBC went subscription only (and here the BBC has an enormous opportunity to improve its viewing), then free of the licence fee, more people no doubt will watch. More viewers, more ad revenue, which hopefully would be translated into a reduction in the enormity of ads in addition to improving their content from the roller coaster of boring cosmetic type ads. I believe Freeview does have a future, but it must be free from the BBC.
Don't longer watch freeview I watch Sky Q with some subscriptions ie Netflix if I was if I didn't have BSkyB channels etc I'd would get Freesat as I hate being stuck with lack of extra bbc channels. So can watch what ever part of the region sky and Freesat have all these channels.
iPlayer does too
I think freeview as it is will probs dee off in the next 10 years or so (especially shopping channels and possibly specialist channels and the repeats ones). But I think there's always room for bbc1,2,itv, itv2 and channel 4 to keep broadcasting in some form while still taking a much greater plunge into streaming/on demand stuff.
Basically, keep the main channels but cut out the unnecessary fluff.
I still use Freeview only really the main channels such as BBC 1, STV etc for the evening news, soaps and when sport is being broadcast, As others have said Freeview has limited bandwidth a lot of the channels that are SD have quite poor picture and poor sound quality, Freeview's HD content is limited also due too bandwidth. Streaming content is the future but then some older people may not have broadband so they would still use there rooftop aerial for TV, I think Freeview would need too continue in some form at least too cater for everyone
If you only like to watch British shows then Freeview is the way to go but if like me and you prefer US Imports then Sky,Virgin/ Streaming Service like Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ is where they all go and the few US Shows on Freeview channels get treated poorly like Channel 5 and E4
I always record programs as I'm appt to fall asleep! It took a long time to get digital TV ie. Freeview reliable (I was in the industry), I sometimes use 'catch up' via internet and invariably it's a pain, freezes, drops out etc. Not a good way at all I find, most frustrating!
I'd be more upset about the fate of the BBC if their output was still of a high quality like it was in the past, but it's not. The BBC always seemed to have a layer of class and polish that other broadcasters didn't have, but nowadays, they're pretty much on the same level of an ITV or even Channel 5. Ru Paul's Drag Race. The Wheel, Mrs Brown's Boys etc. It's just lowest common denominator rubbish. Unfortunately, only with the death of The Queen did we see a return to a classier, more muted, more fundamentally British BBC, rather than the crass, loud BBC that we've been forced to endure for decades now.
I use my old hacked Humax Freeview box, great for recording random movies I like that don't appear on any streaming service I use etc
Love sky cuz it has all channels
They should start making the day time soap operas again but instead of targeting stay at home house wives this time around they should target unemployed and bored Muslims and Africans. That's how to update this model for modern Britain.
You hope the BBC don't become a subscription service? The TV licence is already proof that it is a subscription service.
Free view technically isn’t free if you want to look into it too much
The monthly payment is quite expensive... basically.... So... and most people don't watch these pre-made programmes but want real-time sports gaming and entertainments. So... and they are paying it, to hold, and not even necessarily watch it. From this perspective, is it any more economical really? It isn't ? Not truly ? So.....
Outside of Freeview, does Britain just not have free OTA broadcasting required?
Freeview and Freesat are the free OTA broadcasting services, using terrestrial or satellite systems
@@memediatek So this means someone currently has enough oomph to kill of OTA via antenna right now in the UK?