Is Online Television The Way Forward?

Since the launch of television in the 1930's, broadcasting has come a long way in the past eighty years. From the UK going from four channels (BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV and Channel 4) in the eighties, to now having over a hundred channels available via satellite, cable and with over seventy channels on standard digital television. But what does the future hold for television as we know it? Well with internet speeds going from a crappy 28k dial-up to over 50mb broadband, we're seeing more online streaming services surfacing such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, which are beginning to dominate our television screens. Even Sky have jumped on the online bandwagon by launching Now TV, offering a handful of its entertainment channels such as Sky 1 and Fox, along with their movie and sports channels as a cheaper alternative to cable and satellite, which you receive by buying a rebranded Roku box for £9.99, or via their Now TV app available on Smart TV's, Pads and now mobile phones. With various alternatives to watch online TV and on-demand services being readily and cheaply available, could this spell the end for television as we know it?

Picture: BBC

Last year, the BBC announced that it was to close BBC Three and make it available online only due to cutting financial costs. This caused a bit of a stir amongst its loyal viewers, especially as this has grown to be a popular channel since its launch in 2003. However, since its announcement, they've been unable to secure the rights to shows such as Family Guy and American Dad, because of security issues with the BBC iPlayer, therefore the BBC had to move most of its popular programmes to their other channels BBC 1 and 2, losing some of its popular US imports like Family Guy to ITV. 

So what are the benefits of online broadcasting? Well, it can be a cheap alternative I suppose. There's no expensive broadcasting equipment required other than a decent streaming server and a reliable broadband connection. There's also alternative apps available which allow you to watch HD quality channels from the US and around the world without the need of satellite equipment being installed. Another benefit, especially to UK audiences is that on-demand television allows you to watch what you want, when you want, dismissing the watershed which is imposed on UK television stations so you can't watch anything other than PG rated material before 9pm. So unless you've got Sky or Now TV, who's movie channels are no longer required to operate under the watershed regulations because they use the pin protection software on its boxes. British television can be quite limited during the day with constant edited movies and crappy daytime programming, unlike our european neighbours who can watch programmes and movies like The Deer Hunter uncut in the afternoon on free television. Yeah, television should still be monitored so you don't get propaganda and sick images on our screens, but viewers should be given the freedom to make their own decisions on what they want to watch, like they do in most european countries. However in the UK, our government and OFCOM won't allow it, and we're still being told these are the programmes you're offered and that's it until 9pm, then you can watch what you want. Which coming from an adults perspective, takes the piss really as it shows these people don't trust you in being a responsible adult, especially if you've got kids. They're excuse is that the watershed is there to protect viewers from seeing inappropriate material. Hang on, we've got the internet, which at a click of a mouse, can give you hardcore pornography, more graphic than what is allowed on UK porn channels. There's also You Tube and Live Leak, which allow its viewers, again with a simple click can access thousands of graphic content videos. Yet in the UK, you're not trusted to either turn over the channel or turn off the television if something offends you or isn't appropriate to children. The main culprit is bad language in films and programmes. The UK was quite strict with this especially after the watershed, but in the last twenty years, broadcasters have become more relaxed, where we can watch a film or television programme uncut after 9pm which can contain strong language. More recently, milder language such as 'piss' and 'arse' is now heard in daytime television, mainly in US programmes, but words such as 'shit' and 'bastard' are still censored until after 7pm on some channels, despite OFCOM actually giving the broadcasters the choice to allow PG rated mild language to be broadcast before the 9pm watershed, but they still opt not to do so. 

Picture: Wired.com

So, from all that, online television could be an advantage in that it will give viewers more freedom to watch what they want, as the technology will be there to allow all broadcasters to use a pin protection system which Sky and Virgin Media are currently using. 

But before I go in to the advantages of online television, let's first look at the disadvantages. The first being the UK needs a stable broadband connection. At present, a good percentage of the country still can't receive broadband, and unless you're willing to pay a fortune to receive broadband via a satellite or if you're lucky enough to be in a 3G/4G signal area, you're still receiving the internet via dial up speeds. For some reason, Wii-Max hasn't taken off in the UK which would really help rural areas out and give customers high broadband speeds without the need to dig up your driveway for fibre optic cables to be installed, along with a £150 bill for the work. So for the BBC to say, that they're placing one of its channels online only, and the fact some folk are still unable to subscribe or receive on-demand television because of their poor internet connection is a further kick in the teeth for them. Plus, buffering is a major issue for some in busy broadband areas, because they're not receiving the speeds they pay for because of busy networks. So what is the use watching a channel, which keeps buffering every minute or so, because your internet is struggling. Another issue would be programming content as receiving online channels from other countries is easily done, because VPN can override geo-blocking which a lot of networks use to stop people from outside the UK or US receiving subscription or exclusive channels. So unless you can guarantee the copyright holders to a film or programme that your online channel can only be received by the country its intended for, then you've got no chance of bringing quality programming to your viewers unless you're making high quality material yourself. Finally, you can't record from online television unless you buy the expensive kit that will allow you to do so. But if you manage to pay for that, you're going back to the old VHS days, where you can only record and watch one channel. So until TiVo technology comes out for online television, or the channels place everything they show on a catch up basis, you're more likely to miss your favourite show. Finally, could online television lead to more people watching on-demand television over live television? Its possible as a good percentage of UK viewers are watching a lot of on-demand television these days. So unless broadcasters look at how on-demand television can keep them going financially, live TV could become a thing of the past as I've said previously in this thread, people would rather watch what they want, when they want. 

Picture: VHS Recorder from 1982

What about the advantages then? Well I mentioned earlier that it could open the door on television schedules being improved, especially in the UK where the watershed dominates what we can watch during the day, unless you've got the Sky Movie Channels, Amazon Prime or Netflix. It could also be used to reduce piracy by opening the geo-blockade and allow US channels and their on-demand counterparts to be made available in other countries allowing for programmes such as Game of Thrones to be shown at the same time everywhere, which could possibly reduce downloads by those who are having to wait a long time to see these programmes. Okay, this could have financial implications on the production companies or networks who rely on their rights being snapped up by foreign broadcasters, but would it really be a massive dent in their finances? Well, let's say if the US version of HBO was made available to the UK, via subscription, then they would see an increase in subscribers. Also, broadcasters such as Sky Atlantic, who like to model themselves on being the UK version of HBO, would still be able to purchase the rights to programmes like Game of Thrones, as people would use them as a second chance to catch their favourite HBO programmes. This would be the same for other channels who have purchased the rights to broadcast US imports on UK television, its actually a win-win situation. Reduce piracy, gain more subscribers! It could also help shows that are lacking in viewers and could avoid them in being cancelled after one or two seasons. If a programme doesn't do well in America, then its canned. The US networks don't care about whether or not its doing great anywhere else, but again, if their channel is freely available elsewhere, this could boost the survival of a programme as it would gain more viewers. As for scheduling, this isn't a problem. Yes there's a five to seven hour time difference between the UK and US, but if recording facilities were available for online television, then this wouldn't be a problem, unless your a die-hard fan then you'll stay up and watch the damn thing.

One more advantage would be that it could open the door to provider competition. At present in the UK, you've got Sky dominating the market, with Virgin a second best for subscription channels, with Netflix closing in on them, but other than that, its Freeview or Freesat for those not wanting subscription television. However, on Freeview HD, online television has begun to surface, with several choices from the likes of VuTV offering subscription channels such as Comedy Central and Cartoon Network via broadband if you're box or Smart TV is compatible. So what's not stopping new providers bringing out their own online boxes, offering a range of channels from around the world? Unless Sky fully jump on the online bandwagon, this could be a game changer for television viewers, being offered alternative channels without the need of a satellite dish or a cable box being installed.

Summing up then, if broadcasters actually took time out at looking into the possibilities of online television and the doors that it could open, not just for them, but to advertisers, sponsors and increase their subscription revenues. Online television in my opinion is certainly the way forward.

How The Mighty Fall

As the UK Prime Minister says the country is out of the recession. Within a week of photographic giants Jessops going into administration and closing its shops after 90 years. Big music giant HMV today have also called in the administrators.
HMV has retail stores worldwide and has been seen as the main retailer for music and video - until now that is.

So what the hell happened? Is the recession to blame along with the Government for not doing enough to save businesses from failing? Or is technology bringing down retail giants to their knees?

Personally, I think both have had a part to play. The Government hiked VAT up from 17.5% to 20% raising prices and increasing the cost to run a business. This rise in VAT was frowned upon by many, but the Government stood their ground and raised it to 20%.
Recently, the Government announced plans to raise VAT further to 25%, which could mean more well-known businesses could end up knocking on the administrators door, putting more people out of work. It would also mean less money in the customer's pocket as fuel would become more expensive amongst other household bills.
However, this has yet to be given the green light as the announcement has angered many MP's and members of the E.U. have actually spoke up telling the Government to lower VAT and not raise it to help move the economy. But as per usual, this plea has fallen onto deaf ears and the Government continue on to put us back into the recession.

In saying all that with the growth of technology, faster broadband and cheaper online retailers - is there really any shock value to the news of HMV going under? Not really, no.
I personally found HMV to be expensive on a lot of its goods. For example, last year I bought the Alien Blu-ray box set for £18 in Tesco. It was also the same price in other high street and online retailers who sold it for around the same price. However in HMV, you could buy the same box set for £40. That's a big difference, but in their defence, HMV have had decent sales on such as 5 Blu-Ray discs for £30 and the more recent blue-cross sale knocking 25% of its displayed price.
Unfortunately, these sales haven't helped the company from going under because the online market is under cutting their competition with ease.

What high street retailers should be doing is taking on these cheap online retailers head on and match their prices. At present, customers would be willing to wait three days for a item which they bought a hell of lot cheaper than what they could in a high street store. If a high street retailer matched or under cut its online competition they could see a rise in profits as people would most probably opt to make their purchases in store rather than waiting those three days.

However, with faster broadband speeds now available in the UK, a lot of people are preferring to download their music, games and films rather than buy a hard copy. Why? Space saving is one reason with no CD or DVD cases cluttering up room space. As for other reasons, well, shopping from home is the big thing now. People would rather buy online in the comfort of their own homes, plus you can shop with non UK online retailers being able to buy a product not available in the UK.

Overall then, are we really surprised to see well-known high street retailers disappear? I think not.