Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:VSo3e.20878$C7.15636@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Many remote areas still don't have digital TV and won't for at least 12
months. Supply of STBs for those areas is bound to be a problem. Most will
be taken by the cities and won't get to the remote areas so there will
still need to be a reasonable phase-in period for those people. In
practice, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the simulcast period is
extended for at least 2 or 3 years.

Ironically the UK has just done its first cutover and (perhaps wisely) have
done it in some tiny Welsh villages (460 households). They were "provided
with" STBs, which implies they were given to them, although some may have
had already bought boxes for Freeview anyway (and others might have had
digital payTV).

As for how much longer the simulcast will run than currently legislated is
anyone's guess. If the government comes up with some cunning plan to
actually make digital TV attractive to the masses then there won't be any
need to extend it at all.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:424e2628$0$1872$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

If the government comes up with some cunning plan to actually make digital
TV attractive to the masses then there won't be any need to extend it at
all.

Of course that's the hard part isn't it? The only way to do it, IMO, is to
supply people with subsidised STBs and I don't mean ones of the quality that
they sell in Woolies. A friend of mine gotone and it's here at the moment. I
used it for two nights and then put it back in its box. I like the
widescreen but that's the only thing the box can give me that I don't have
already.

 

[GD]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in
news:yYp3e.20943$C7.397@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

If the government comes up with some cunning plan to actually make
digital TV attractive to the masses then there won't be any need to
extend it at all.

Of course that's the hard part isn't it? The only way to do it, IMO,
is to supply people with subsidised STBs and I don't mean ones of the
quality that they sell in Woolies.

No, the only way to do it is reverse the law that makes it illegal
for TV stations to show alternative programming on the various other
digital channels they have.
Once that is done, people will buy their own boxes.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"GD" <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote in message
news:Xns962DA226ECFCalfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in
news:yYp3e.20943$C7.397@news-server.bigpond.net.au:


If the government comes up with some cunning plan to actually make
digital TV attractive to the masses then there won't be any need to
extend it at all.

Of course that's the hard part isn't it? The only way to do it, IMO,
is to supply people with subsidised STBs and I don't mean ones of the
quality that they sell in Woolies.


No, the only way to do it is reverse the law that makes it illegal
for TV stations to show alternative programming on the various other
digital channels they have.
Once that is done, people will buy their own boxes.

Even if you revoke that part of the legislation, in order for it to work the
networks have to come on board and seeing that they argued for that part of
the legislation, I don't see it happening.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:ZCy3e.21507$C7.16752@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"GD" <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote in message
news:Xns962DA226ECFCalfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150...
"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in
news:yYp3e.20943$C7.397@news-server.bigpond.net.au:


If the government comes up with some cunning plan to actually make
digital TV attractive to the masses then there won't be any need to
extend it at all.

Of course that's the hard part isn't it? The only way to do it, IMO,
is to supply people with subsidised STBs and I don't mean ones of the
quality that they sell in Woolies.


No, the only way to do it is reverse the law that makes it illegal
for TV stations to show alternative programming on the various other
digital channels they have.
Once that is done, people will buy their own boxes.

Even if you revoke that part of the legislation, in order for it to work
the networks have to come on board and seeing that they argued for that
part of the legislation, I don't see it happening.

Ten argues that if just one of them starts multi-channelling, then they will
all have no choice but to follow suit. They know that Seven will probably be
first to do it given the opportunity, of course, and they're running scared.
Shame they see it as such a threat and not as an opportunity. If they
targeted their secondary channels at a new audience they wouldn't risk
decimating their primary ratings channel, would they?

What we need is more carefully-targetted channels, like a news channel,
music channel, youth channel, etc... not more watered-down facsimiles of
what we already have. Why not retransmit BBC World with locally-inserted
ads, or MTV or whatever? Does Foxtel have the FTA rights sewn up for these
as well? The cost to the networks would be minimal and ads would cover them
and more, surely. Freeview in the UK carries a number of international
channels usually carried by pay TV so I don't see why it couldn't be done
here.

Alternatively, how about a music channel where people call a 190 number to
request clips (a la TMF)? That would surely pay for itself. Virtually no
staff involvement, just a paying jukebox.

The encumbants simply don't want to make any extra effort and insist on
retaining their nice little oligopoly. Funny that.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 01:44:25 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com>
wrote:

What we need is more carefully-targetted channels, like a news channel,
music channel, youth channel, etc...

And when you carefully target channels you end up with small niche
audiences. Those small fragmented audiences aren't very appealing to
large budget mass advertising campaigns. So then you have to charge
people a fee for the the channel to pay for it. And lo and behold you
have just reinvented Pay TV.

FTA survives in the US with 50% of the market, but that is because
there are 4 major networks that are networked across a market of 280m
people, supported by some small local stations (which are also now
moving to networked News and Sport to survive).

Some actual competition between Pay TV channels (and an efficent
delivery system e.g. not an analogue based cable system owned by a
phone monopoly) would have been the way to go about that.

What Seven wanted to do is run Pay TV sports and movies against Foxtel
using terrestrial TV. They were prepared to take that gamble because
they aren't making any money. Channel 9 and Channel 10 are hugely
profitable so want the keep the status quo.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:58:18 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com>
wrote:

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:VSo3e.20878$C7.15636@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Many remote areas still don't have digital TV and won't for at least 12
months. Supply of STBs for those areas is bound to be a problem. Most will
be taken by the cities and won't get to the remote areas so there will
still need to be a reasonable phase-in period for those people. In
practice, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the simulcast period is
extended for at least 2 or 3 years.

Ironically the UK has just done its first cutover and (perhaps wisely) have
done it in some tiny Welsh villages (460 households). They were "provided
with" STBs, which implies they were given to them, although some may have
had already bought boxes for Freeview anyway (and others might have had
digital payTV).

You don't get it do you. You can't give away STBs to everyone (and
even if you could you are just taxing the system somewhere else to pay
for it).

STBs are the major problem anyway. There is a reason why all TVs and
VCRs have had turners built into them, it makes them much easier to
use all you have to do is plug a power cord and an aerial into them,
and the connect them with an RF cable. Then you have the ability to
watch, tape and timeshift TV.

A system that requires Pay TV STBs, TV STBs and VCR STBs is going to
have problems.

As for how much longer the simulcast will run than currently legislated is
anyone's guess. If the government comes up with some cunning plan to
actually make digital TV attractive to the masses then there won't be any
need to extend it at all.

There is no cunning plan, which is why they went with forced switching
of analogue.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 04:06:13 GMT, "Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote:

The Act clearly states that the
simulcast period is "to run for 8 years or for such longer period as is
prescribed" so the intention to extend the simulcast period for longer if
necessary seems to have been in the minds of those who framed the
legislation.

The intentions of those who framed the legislation was not to make the
simulcast period longer if necessary.

It was to empower the Government to prescribe a period that suited
them, with eight years being the minimum they thought they could push
it off into the future to get the networks to agree. And that is what
they did.

Many remote areas still don't have digital TV and won't for at least 12
months. Supply of STBs for those areas is bound to be a problem. Most will
be taken by the cities and won't get to the remote areas so there will still
need to be a reasonable phase-in period for those people. In practice, I
wouldn't be surprised at all if the simulcast period is extended for at
least 2 or 3 years.

The simulcast period is eight years from the start of digital, and for
remote areas the ABA gets to precribe the period. That is who seperate
issue, one the Government didn't give a damn about. They only cared
about making billions out of reselling the spectrum in capital cities
(it was the time of ridiculous prices for spectrum auctions remember).


I too believe that the analogue system will still be running in 2008.
That is not because it was intended or allowed for however, it is
because what was intended has failed.

dewatf.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f6030.102440484@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:58:18 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com
You don't get it do you. You can't give away STBs to everyone (and
even if you could you are just taxing the system somewhere else to pay
for it).

I don't expect them to "give away STBs to everyone". I would think, however,
that some sort of subsidy might be required to get the last stragglers on
board. Given that STBs have dropped to a lowest price of $60, they'll
probably be coming free in cereal packs by 2008, anyway.

STBs are the major problem anyway. There is a reason why all TVs and
VCRs have had turners built into them, it makes them much easier to
use all you have to do is plug a power cord and an aerial into them,
and the connect them with an RF cable. Then you have the ability to
watch, tape and timeshift TV.

That's exactly why TVs VCRs and DVD recorders should have digital tuners in
them by now.

A system that requires Pay TV STBs, TV STBs and VCR STBs is going to
have problems.

Of course. STBs are only the interim step between the existing technology
and the future when they eventually stop making gear with analogue tuners in
them.

 

[Mr.T]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f5dd6.101838515@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

And when you carefully target channels you end up with small niche
audiences.

That's the point.

Those small fragmented audiences aren't very appealing to
large budget mass advertising campaigns.

But even more appealing to smaller advertisers that cater for that niche.
Especially if the rates are lower.
The bigger advertisers can still pay for the main channels. The federal
government (ie. taxpayers) is now the biggest advertiser anyway.

So then you have to charge people a fee for the the channel to pay for it.

Not at all. They just shift the same content they are already screening, and
keep showing some of the stuff they currently drop so readily. And repeat
some of the stuff they don't bother with at the moment.

Some actual competition between Pay TV channels (and an efficent
delivery system e.g. not an analogue based cable system owned by a
phone monopoly) would have been the way to go about that.

And after you have paid up front for TV channels, what do you get, more
bloody ads!
I find it far better and cheaper to rent DVD's from the local shop.

MrT.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:424f65ac$0$30370$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f5dd6.101838515@news.syd.ihug.com.au...
And when you carefully target channels you end up with small niche
audiences.

That's the point.

And the beauty of it is they could target audiences outside their normal
demograph, e.g. if Ten ran a news channel they'd hardly decimate their main
channel, would they?

Those small fragmented audiences aren't very appealing to
large budget mass advertising campaigns.

But even more appealing to smaller advertisers that cater for that niche.
Especially if the rates are lower.
The bigger advertisers can still pay for the main channels. The federal
government (ie. taxpayers) is now the biggest advertiser anyway.

So then you have to charge people a fee for the the channel to pay for it.

Not at all. They just shift the same content they are already screening,
and
keep showing some of the stuff they currently drop so readily. And repeat
some of the stuff they don't bother with at the moment.

I don't really agree with that because that is where they risk splitting
their existing audience, which is, after all, their main argument against
multichannelling. Multichannels would have to be carefully targetted away
from their main chanel's audience to be successful. Watered-down copies of
Seven/Nine/Ten would be a disaster for everyone concerned. that's why they
need to think outside the box, and provide something more innovative.

 

[Mr.T]

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:424f6880$0$27706$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

I don't really agree with that because that is where they risk splitting
their existing audience, which is, after all, their main argument against
multichannelling. Multichannels would have to be carefully targetted away
from their main chanel's audience to be successful. Watered-down copies of
Seven/Nine/Ten would be a disaster for everyone concerned.

Why? It's extra channels were talking about, NOT replacement of existing
channels.

that's why they
need to think outside the box, and provide something more innovative.

They are not going to spend too much extra money, because the advertising
revenue won't grow significantly.
However let's say they had a sci fi channel, they could show all the
programs they now drop, for not much extra cost. A niche market definitely,
but I see no reason why it would not be profitable. Similarly an MTV channel
is easy, a comedy channel etc. The idea is to attract an extra audience that
would not be watching at that time. During the peak viewing times the
majority would still be watching the main channels.
It would surely keep a few people from pay TV or hiring DVD's.

A 24 hour news channel though would have to be sourced from OS, or it would
not be viable though.

Unfortunately the most likely starter would be 24 hours of Big Brother :-(
Or 24 hours of Backyard Makeovers :-( :-(

MrT.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:424f6e37$0$5598$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:424f6880$0$27706$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
I don't really agree with that because that is where they risk splitting
their existing audience, which is, after all, their main argument against
multichannelling. Multichannels would have to be carefully targetted away
from their main chanel's audience to be successful. Watered-down copies
of
Seven/Nine/Ten would be a disaster for everyone concerned.

Why? It's extra channels were talking about, NOT replacement of existing
channels.

Say Nine has a second channel in a similar format/content to their main one.
What happens? Nine's audience gets fragmented between the two channels,
ratings drop and Nine has no choice but to cut advertising rates because
they can't deliver the audience they used to. We already have three very
similar commercial channels offering similar content, six channels all doing
the same thing would be ridiculous.

They are not going to spend too much extra money, because the advertising
revenue won't grow significantly.
However let's say they had a sci fi channel, they could show all the
programs they now drop, for not much extra cost. A niche market
definitely,
but I see no reason why it would not be profitable. Similarly an MTV
channel
is easy, a comedy channel etc. The idea is to attract an extra audience
that
would not be watching at that time. During the peak viewing times the
majority would still be watching the main channels.
It would surely keep a few people from pay TV or hiring DVD's.

This is the kind of approach I mean.

A 24 hour news channel though would have to be sourced from OS, or it
would
not be viable though.

This would be my approach, just buy in a ready made channel and insert local
ads. Or a music channel where people call in or SMS to request videos (i.e.
totally automated with no user intervention on the network's part).

Unfortunately the most likely starter would be 24 hours of Big Brother :-(

They could do that, but again, this would pose a risk to ratings on their
main channel.

Or 24 hours of Backyard Makeovers :-( :-(

I thought we already had that??? Admittedly Seven has reduced their
lifestyle/makeover shows significantly this year compared to last.

 

[Mr.T]

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:424f7234$0$32478$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Say Nine has a second channel in a similar format/content to their main
one.
What happens? Nine's audience gets fragmented between the two channels,
ratings drop and Nine has no choice but to cut advertising rates because
they can't deliver the audience they used to.

Exactly, but is made up by the extra revenue from the new channels, plus a
little extra hopefully.

We already have three very
similar commercial channels offering similar content, six channels all
doing
the same thing would be ridiculous.

Not at all, you would prefer one?
It's about having a choice when you want to watch. Otherwise you're better
off with a DVD.

They could do that, but again, this would pose a risk to ratings on their
main channel.

You are missing the point, who cares which of their channels it's on. If it
rates there will be advertising revenue.
The total revenue minus the total costs may increase (more profit) if the
extra costs are not too high.
As usual people will be paid to balance the costs Vs revenue breakdown.

Unfortunately the big channels are happy with the status quo, so would
rather spend money to prevent extra channels.

MrT.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f5dd6.101838515@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 01:44:25 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com
wrote:
and an efficent delivery system e.g. not an analogue based cable system

There wasn't much choice when Foxtel started. It was analogue cable or
nothing. In any case that will be gone in less than 18 months now that
Foxtel is digital on cable.

owned by a phone monopoly) would have been the way to go about that.

Who else would own a cable system or had the resources to install one?

 

[Who_tat_me]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f6030.102440484@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:58:18 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com
wrote:

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:VSo3e.20878$C7.15636@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Many remote areas still don't have digital TV and won't for at least 12
months. Supply of STBs for those areas is bound to be a problem. Most
will
be taken by the cities and won't get to the remote areas so there will
still need to be a reasonable phase-in period for those people. In
practice, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the simulcast period is
extended for at least 2 or 3 years.

Ironically the UK has just done its first cutover and (perhaps wisely)
have
done it in some tiny Welsh villages (460 households). They were "provided
with" STBs, which implies they were given to them, although some may have
had already bought boxes for Freeview anyway (and others might have had
digital payTV).


You don't get it do you. You can't give away STBs to everyone (and
even if you could you are just taxing the system somewhere else to pay
for it).

STBs are the major problem anyway. There is a reason why all TVs and
VCRs have had turners built into them, it makes them much easier to
use all you have to do is plug a power cord and an aerial into them,
and the connect them with an RF cable. Then you have the ability to
watch, tape and timeshift TV.

A system that requires Pay TV STBs, TV STBs and VCR STBs is going to
have problems.

You don't seem to get it. There is no alternative to that. You can't expect
everybody to go out and buy a new digital TV and throw their existing TVs
away. STBs are necessary.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f624b.102979234@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 04:06:13 GMT, "Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote:

The Act clearly states that the
simulcast period is "to run for 8 years or for such longer period as is
prescribed" so the intention to extend the simulcast period for longer if
necessary seems to have been in the minds of those who framed the
legislation.

The intentions of those who framed the legislation was not to make the
simulcast period longer if necessary.

If it wasn't, then why is the provision in the Act? I'm sure it wasn't to

use toner.

The simulcast period is eight years from the start of digital,

Correction: "The simulcast period is eight years from the start of digital
OR LONGER IF NECESSARY"

I too believe that the analogue system will still be running in 2008.
That is not because it was intended or allowed for

It was allowed for though.

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:6bM3e.22237$C7.6089@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

owned by a phone monopoly) would have been the way to go about that.

Who else would own a cable system or had the resources to install one?

How can Foxtel AND Optus cable TV both be a monopoly?
A duopoly maybe!

MrT.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:424f9989$0$11236$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:6bM3e.22237$C7.6089@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
owned by a phone monopoly) would have been the way to go about that.

Who else would own a cable system or had the resources to install one?

How can Foxtel AND Optus cable TV both be a monopoly?
A duopoly maybe!

Exactly.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:22:01 GMT, Ross Herbert
<rherber1SPAMEX@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:53:31 +1000, "Chopper"
Chopperbplayne@skeylink.net> wrote:

Hi Ross

Do you notice any difference between Ch9's coverage & that of Ch10's?
I find even on analogue, 9 doesn't seem as good as 10?


I haven't specifically checked the difference but will do so next
weekend.

While I wasn't able to have both Ch9 and Ch10 AFL on screen at the
same time my impression is that both channels give a very good display
on SD. However, I prefer the Ch9 presentation because they don't keep
the scoreline on the screen all the time like 10 does. Ten's solid
black scoreline permanently at the bottom of the screen blocks off
approx 1/8th of the viewable screen height.