35 replies to this topic

[thinkingbraindog]

pgdownload, on Dec 1 2006, 08:10 AM, said:

But I was thinking that FTA basically needs people looking at commercials and technology is quickly rendering this model unsustainable.

I don't know that I necessarily agree with that, outside of the illegality of BitTorrent-sourced copyrighted content, for too many reasons to go in to here - but, to take one, I don't think that VoD will happen anytime soon, in the "order anything you want to see and watch it now/soon" sense that gets thrown around; it will happen in the "here's our 5 first-release movies of the week, available on-demand now" sense. Wake me when I can watch "Akumulátor 1", "Luna e l'altra", "Tampopo", "Gamera 3: Iris kakusei" - or even just a particular episode of "Enterprise" - on-demand .

If you're meaning in the "PVRs let people skip commercials" sense, well, you're seeing their adaptation now - from single 15 or 30 second spots that are more effort to jump through than to watch, through crap on the bottom/side/corner of the screen (prediction for the next big TV advertising "innovation": it won't just be station/program promos, and they'll argue it doesn't count towards ads/hour because the program is still on...), right through to product placement. And PayTV is only a year or two behind FTA in that respect - you pay your $60~$100/mo now, and you still get ads during programs, watermarks, and station promos over the credits.

pgdownload, on Dec 1 2006, 08:10 AM, said:

Other countries embraced the PAYTV concept a long time ago - the UK esp. with its TV tax, and more generally everyone has cable in Europe and the US.

Aside from the TV licence "tax" (which you know I agree with, though you could never sell the idea here anymore - partly because public opinion of the ABC and SBS has been too debased and divided by political posturing and arguments for anybody to buy it), it's interesting to note a few things about European Pay and UK FTA TV.

Firstly, the number of ads per hour is less - including station promos, it's generally regulated to 10~15 minutes per hour, as opposed to the unregulated 15~20 here.

Secondly, the breaks are less frequent - usually 1 per half-hour show / 2 or 3 per hour show, as opposed to 2 or 3 per half-hour show here.

And thirdly, they don't have the artificial Pay / FTA divide caused by political pandering that we have here. PayTV fights for market share with FTA by offering breadth of content and international sport; FTA fights back with local programming and better quality, and the playing field is starting to level up with digital multi-channelling and intermediate services like TopUp TV (OK, so it keeps doing its phoenix-trick, dying and reviving ).

(Interesting to note too that, unlike here, FTA generally doesn't pay for carriage on Pay networks in the UK, Europe, and the USA - offering them carriage for free is seen by the PayTV operators as a way of getting people off FTA broadcasts & onto their platform, and by the FTA networks as expanding their reach. In fact, in the US I believe the FTA stations are starting to think they should be paid by the Pay networks!  )

Or, to summarise : In my opinion, technology is reducing most of the differences between FTA and PayTV - almost to the point where they can just be treated as delivery mechanisms, not something special in their own right - and the rest are political, not technical. And we have more artificial, commercially-motivated, politically-manipulated, and legislatively-enshrined differences here - simultaneously pandering to and crippling both the FTA and PayTV lobbies - than anywhere else in the world. That's what's making the FTA model unsustainable, at least in the short to medium term. And it's not a Good Thing...

[ibanez5]

alanh, on Nov 25 2006, 12:50 PM, said:

What the glossy does not say!

Only around 25 % of all of the around 3000 analog transmitters have digital equivalents.

Whilst the remote area satellite transmissions are in MPEG2 when are the fruits of widescreen etc going to be added. It would however be much better to use MPEG4 so that those viewers' can also get HD.

When are CBN2 = PRIME in the Riverina, and SSW 3 = GWN Bunbury going to get digital? These are the only high powered analog only transmitters below channel 6 without a digital companion. There are 27 low powered analog transmitters below channel 6 without digital companions.

Once the above transmitters have digital companions, then the manufacture and import of the channel 1-12 (+) antennas can be stopped. They can be replaced with antennas designed for channel 6 upwards. This will reduce the incidence of impulse interference causing pixellation and sound breakups.

AlanH

There also should be some incentive for the regional commercial broadcasters to pull thier finger out and broadcast digital. Theres countless broadcast sites in regional Australia with just ABC and SBS digital. Seriously, who would buy a STB just for ABC and SBS?

[matturn]

Ben-, on Nov 30 2006, 11:28 PM, said:

My $100 set top box money would be better spent on 4 cartons of beer. It would certainly be more entertaining then the current junk being pumped out by the 3 commercial networks.

It's $40 at Woolworths at the moment. They sell a certain box for that price for a few weeks every few months.

[matturn]

thinkingbraindog, on Dec 2 2006, 05:55 PM, said:

I don't know that I necessarily agree with that, outside of the illegality of BitTorrent-sourced copyrighted content, for too many reasons to go in to here - but, to take one, I don't think that VoD will happen anytime soon, in the "order anything you want to see and watch it now/soon" sense that gets thrown around; it will happen in the "here's our 5 first-release movies of the week, available on-demand now" sense. Wake me when I can watch "Akumulátor 1", "Luna e l'altra", "Tampopo", "Gamera 3: Iris kakusei" - or even just a particular episode of "Enterprise" - on-demand .

You may have to be awakened soon then. The sort of VoD service you're looking for will be available from IPTV as soon as our data networks can handle it, and a bigger market than inner Canberra can watch. Though some of what you've mentioned might be available on TransACT already.

thinkingbraindog, on Dec 2 2006, 05:55 PM, said:

Aside from the TV licence "tax" (which you know I agree with, though you could never sell the idea here anymore - partly because public opinion of the ABC and SBS has been too debased and divided by political posturing and arguments for anybody to buy it), it's interesting to note a few things about European Pay and UK FTA TV.

Firstly, the number of ads per hour is less - including station promos, it's generally regulated to 10~15 minutes per hour, as opposed to the unregulated 15~20 here.

Secondly, the breaks are less frequent - usually 1 per half-hour show / 2 or 3 per hour show, as opposed to 2 or 3 per half-hour show here.

And thirdly, they don't have the artificial Pay / FTA divide caused by political pandering that we have here. PayTV fights for market share with FTA by offering breadth of content and international sport; FTA fights back with local programming and better quality, and the playing field is starting to level up with digital multi-channelling and intermediate services like TopUp TV (OK, so it keeps doing its phoenix-trick, dying and reviving ).

(Interesting to note too that, unlike here, FTA generally doesn't pay for carriage on Pay networks in the UK, Europe, and the USA - offering them carriage for free is seen by the PayTV operators as a way of getting people off FTA broadcasts & onto their platform, and by the FTA networks as expanding their reach. In fact, in the US I believe the FTA stations are starting to think they should be paid by the Pay networks!  )

Or, to summarise : In my opinion, technology is reducing most of the differences between FTA and PayTV - almost to the point where they can just be treated as delivery mechanisms, not something special in their own right - and the rest are political, not technical. And we have more artificial, commercially-motivated, politically-manipulated, and legislatively-enshrined differences here - simultaneously pandering to and crippling both the FTA and PayTV lobbies - than anywhere else in the world. That's what's making the FTA model unsustainable, at least in the short to medium term. And it's not a Good Thing...

I believe when pay TV started here, the FTA channels wanted to be paid for carriage... and why not?

In the US, all local channels of any strength have to be carried by law - though usually at a very dodgy bitrate. In the UK, nearly all local channels are carried, though the RTLs have to negotiate their own passage - which I think only one or two has. Remember that there's a lot less local variations of commercial TV in the UK per capita than here.

Another big difference is that ITV doesn't own 1/4 of Sky, 1/3 of Sky News and 1/2 of Sky Sports, as Nine does of Foxtel, Sky News and Fox Sports here. If that were the case, things would outdoubtably be quite different.

Considering that the all digital terrestrial FTA channels in the UK are also on Sky STBs, both platforms begin with the same quantity of local programming. Sky then adds more. Sky therefore has more local programming.

Freeview works against Sky and cable because a) it's free and you don't need to connect the TV involved to a sat dish or cable. A house might have one TV with Sky, and three without it. Freeview is not reducing the number of Sky subscriptions, indeed, some claim it's increasing them by showing previously uninterested people the advantages of extra channels.

The BBC and S4C work against the various owners of sat and cable only channels because they're publicly funded. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 survive because of their strong branding, excellent availability, and to a lesser extent because they own Freeview muxes.

A country with freer broadcasting rules than the UK is the US. There each broadcaster gets their own mux to do whatever they like with. They have a version of Freeview in a few cities called USDTV that nobody uses. They have few digital terrestrial channels that aren't on analogue, because content owners can get a better deal from cable channels. Most extra digital FTA channels are Christian or home shopping in nature. The UK's rules, history and tonnes of tax money make Freeview so vibrant.

[AndrewWilliams]

ibanez5, on Dec 2 2006, 05:50 PM, said:

There also should be some incentive for the regional commercial broadcasters to pull thier finger out and broadcast digital. Theres countless broadcast sites in regional Australia with just ABC and SBS digital. Seriously, who would buy a STB just for ABC and SBS?

Agreed.  I live 100km from the Brisbane CBD in an area with a population of 50000 and still don't have any commercial networks on digital.  SBS and ABC have been digital for 2 years now in my area.

[jimellis]

Here here - Well said Ben

Ben-, on Nov 30 2006, 10:28 PM, said:

That article cracked me up. Here's a some of my favourite parts:

>Once the switchover to purely digital occurs, the spectrum previously used by the analogue transmissions >could be used for new digital channels and the enhancement of existing channels.

We could have new digital channels now, but we don't. We could have enhancement of existing channels now, but we don't. We could have a proper EPG now and we don't. Ceasing analogue transmissions won't change the pathetic protectionist corporate bias of the current federal minister

>Not only will brand new digital channels emerge

Really, last I heard, channel Nine were vehemently against multi-channeling ??? But wait it get's better....

>Senator Coonan said that one of the reasons for the low digital take-up was the fact that consumers were >not aware of its benefits.

Is this woman actually conscious, put her on a plane and get her over to the UK so she can see a region with a high digital takeup and see if she figures it out then. The reason consumers are not aware of it's benefits Helen is because thanks to the restrictive legislation and repetitive mishandling of this issue there are NO &*^%ing benefits. Why the hell would Joe Public drop $100 on a set top box when it gives them nothing more than they currently have. And sorry, but ABC2 and SBS world news don't count. The man in the street couldn't give a toss about what these channels offer. My $100 set top box money would be better spent on 4 cartons of beer. It would certainly be more entertaining then the current junk being pumped out by the 3 commercial networks.

If you want to see digital takeup skyrocket encourage the networks to multichannel different types or multiple games of sport. That would give you an immediate boost. Chuck in a few more multi-channels of children's, music, and dramatic entertainment and bingo, you've figured it out. Sadly digital audio and EPG's and High Definition might matter to the people on this board, but if you want the unwashed masses to take it up you've got to give them a reason and the only one that will work is MORE QUALITY CONTENT !

You don't need to waste $20 million on an action plan. People will look at the advertisements and say Big Deal, my picture quality is fine already and I get the tv guide in the saturday paper.

What a load of bollocks

Ben

[aussiefan]

AndrewWilliams, on Jan 31 2007, 06:40 AM, said:

Agreed.  I live 100km from the Brisbane CBD in an area with a population of 50000 and still don't have any commercial networks on digital.  SBS and ABC have been digital for 2 years now in my area.

Same here *sighs* but in the southwest of W.A.

[alanh]

Aussie Fan,
The coverage area for Mt Lennard site is now 200 000 people!

AlanH

[wahroonga farm]

http://www.minister....leases/2007/003

Quote

Digital switchover date confirmed

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, today confirmed that the first firm steps had been taken on the road to completing switchover by the end of 2013.

Senator Conroy said that the switchover to digital television was important to all Australians because it offers benefits to viewers such as improved picture and sound quality and greater program choice. It will also make spectrum available for alternate uses such as new mobile services, a fourth television licence and wireless broadband services.

“We are moving quickly to maximise the benefits for all Australians and keep pace with the rest of the world,” Senator Conroy said.

“Setting a firm date of 2013 for the switchover from analogue to digital television transmission in Australia has given industry the certainty it needs to drive consumer uptake of digital television.

“Until now, industry has had no declared end date and has been unable to plan effectively for digital television,”

“I have established a Digital Switchover Taskforce in the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, to be headed by Andy Townend, to drive the work necessary to deliver switchover by 2013.

“The Taskforce will work closely with industry and report back to me with a comprehensive switchover timetable in the third quarter of 2008,” Senator Conroy said.

The Government has also moved quickly to amend the previous Government’s date of December 2008 to commence digital-only television transmissions in metropolitan markets.

“This is clearly an impossible date for both viewers and industry. The Government has inherited a digital take up rate of approximately 30 per cent and will now work with industry to ensure that all Australians are prepared for digital television.

“Accordingly, I have amended the date for commencement of digital only transmission in metropolitan markets to December 2009. This will allow time for the Taskforce and industry to develop a detailed switchover timetable for all of Australia.”

18 December 2007

Contact: Sophie Mitchell ph. 0412 394 962

[beeblebrox]

wahroonga farm, on Dec 18 2007, 06:55 PM, said:

http://www.minister....leases/2007/003

so Dec 2009 for the capital markets and 2013 for the rest of the country... hooorayy at last we look like we are making some progress (or not)...

[:)]

finally indeed !