Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

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.

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

dewatf.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

That's the point.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

This is the kind of approach I mean.

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).

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

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

one.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

It was allowed for though.

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

MrT.

Exactly.

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.

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.

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.

yep.

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

dewatf.

No the period is eight years or longer as presribed by the Government.

The "Longer if necessary" is retrospective interpretation of the legislation by a committee dominated by Government members after their plan failed.

The legislation gives the power to the Government to prescribe the period through regulation. They made it till the end of 2008.

The point was to pick a date so as everyone would be force to change by it. Not to have a moving target.

The legislation did not allow for a moving target, it just follows from the fact that the power to set the period rests in Government regulations. They could have set a 10 year period and then shortened it to 8.

dewatf.

$60 by 12 million households by an average of 3 appliances per household is still $2 140 000 000

One hell of an interem step.

Why should they? People perfer them not to.

dewatf.

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.

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.