Digital TV: Why do we have to have it? - Page 6

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you're referring to my post:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I was suggesting that - despite the lack of legislation requiring a
majority - that it'd be highly unlikely they would force an analogue
shutdown if there hasn't been a significant majority uptake. This is purely
my opinion, of course.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it
It's also a valid suggestion. A federal election is due in late 2007 and if
people haven't taken up digital by then the government won't be forcing a
shutoff of analogue in non-remote areas if they want to be re-elected.
Analogue TV is not like the analogue mobile phone network. When that was
shut off it wasn't anywhere near as embedded into our lifestyle as TV is. If
they shut off analogue TV and overnight people have nothing to watch, there
will be riots. The government is more likely to extend the simulcast period
than chop it off at the 8 year point. 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.

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?




Quoted text here. Click to load it


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.


Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?




Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.





Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's the point.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load 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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is the kind of approach I mean.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it
one.

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it
doing

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

And why would Channel 10 which has the highest profit margin in the
business want to show a low margin news channel in competition with
every other news channel available on cable and news radio channel?

dewatf.

Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Because 3/4 of the market doesn't have pay TV? And relaying (for example)
BBC World with local ads would be cheap as chips to run. Ten would increase
its overall audience for next to nothing.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Foxtel in this country, and cable in the US even with a 50% share have
struggled to attract much advertising. SBS also struggles and it has
nearly 5% of the FTA market.

FTA in the US has managed to remain profitable, becasue as their
audience share has gone the cost of reaching large numbers of people
has gone up/viewer.

Advertisers like getting to large numbers of people at once.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Stufft that appeals to the masses will always be regarded as shit by
those at the edges.

Foxtel tends to show a lot of the same junk that FTA does these days
on Fox 8, Arena and TV 1, just repeats of it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

yep.

Though my local DVD store now only stocks mostly new releases in the
top 20.

dewatf.

Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it


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

MrT.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it
Exactly.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

They are a monopoly because they have joined forces.
All of the content on them is now regulated by Foxtel.
Optus is just a back up analogue distribution system for the packages,
and Foxtel is planning to pay Optus to upgrade it's cable to the same
digital system as Foxtel's. Telstra is vetoing that because it is not
in a monopolistic arrangement with Optus for telecommunications like
Foxtel is with Optus for Pay TV.

dewatf.

Site Timeline