Get With It Australian Broadcasters!

[troykm]

what is going on here! australia has digital tv for 7 years now and in that time we still have nothing new!!!!

i just looked at the freeview website for the uk, the have over 38 channels for free with your rooftop antenna, and even a movie channel!

when do we get something like this?

or are we rendering aust digital tv to fossil status already, just like out pay tv and broadband industry, where we are about 6 years behind the rest of the world

what do we think?

will somethin new happen soon, a clear picture is not enough!

[MELso]

Channels can (but don't have to) multichannel on HD.

There are lots of factors mitigating against multichannelling here including:

- local content rules

- a desire by TV stations not to fragment their market (without realising that fragmentation in a major way is probably less than 5 years away)

- fragmented market areas (each station has a fair amount of unique local content, as well as in many cases local ownership)

- a smaller market for advertising

But, this is not to say it shouldn't happen. FTA TV will stuggle to hold its own against a wide and growing range of entertainment options, and without providing more choice, people will drift away...

[matturn]

what is going on here! australia has digital tv for 7 years now and in that time we still have nothing new!!!!

i just looked at the freeview website for the uk, the have over 38 channels for free with your rooftop antenna, and even a movie channel!

It's not 38 channels in the traditional sense. Many of them only broadcast for part of the day. I think it's about 22 full time equivalent channels. Also, they use Foxtel/Austar sat-like bitrates, so most channels don't look as sharp as they do here.

That said, it is a better situation than here. NZ is soon to launch their system, which at launch, will have more channels than ours at similar bitrates (though with less HD).

The US system is barely a system. There's more HD than here, but few extra channels - none of which are national. There's a weather channel, a kids channel and some Christian channels that have good coverage though. In the US, they could have dozens of channels with the current rules, but no-one wants to start them. In Washington DC, they have a whole digital-only channel devoted to Nigerian programming because the demand for the space was so low.

[DrP]

The US broadcast scene is a little different. Most residences have access to cable so broadcast FTA isn't in as much demand.

[matturn]

The US broadcast scene is a little different. Most residences have access to cable so broadcast FTA isn't in as much demand.

True, but the case is the same in Europe, and things are different again there. It should also be pointed out that the US has a lot more analog stations than here, plus they have a unique system of independent stations and syndication.

In the US, any analog station on air in an area must be carried there on cable, and most tend to force carriage on sat. Many small stations primarily exist so that their owners get cable carriage. The same is not true of digital only stations.

I guess my unstated point was that every country is different. The UK might have a great system, but the government just allowing more channels wouldn't necessarily make much difference.

The UK also needed it's government to fund a number of new public channels and create new commercial channels (some through joint ventures). It also needed the equivalent of Channel Seven to get on board in a big way, and their version of Foxtel/XYZ to offer a few channels before an attractive critical mass was reached. Then their version of Channel Ten had a good go, as did a number of other companies. All this happened in an environment with a higher level of pay TV penetration than here.

Lets assume the government lets all the channels multicast as much as they like, scraps HD requirements, but doesn't issue any new licences. This would put us in a similar situation to the UK.

The ABC could do no more than it does now. SBS might scrap HD and launch a feed of BBC World, and possibly a Greek, Italian, Chinese, Arabic or Vietnamese channel. Nine would do nothing. Ten would probably do nothing, given it's current HD strategy. Seven might launch a few new channels - that was it's plan in the past. But now, especially given it didn't launch a new AFL channel recently, who knows.

If a new mux or two was put on the table, perhaps a newly "open" Channel A, then things might get more interesting. Allowing MPEG4 would also be good.

[Timmy Downawell]

Ten would probably do nothing

No, I think Ten would probably flick its Big Brother live webstream onto a multichannel, with repetitive ads for its sponsors applied liberally as a value-add for them. Ten could even offer this as soon as this year on their HD channel now that they are legally able to.

Ten could probably also offer an automated music video channel like TMF, where viewers SMS ($$$) their requests for clips while the channel otherwise requires bugger all real human intervention. Absolute minimal cost and real revenue.

[Timmy Downawell]

Just spotted a post on Usenet from someone in Adelaide saying that Seven had different programming on HD than SD last night:

Channel 7's 'HD' channel in Adelaide has been showing different programming

to the SD channel tonight. There were several very watchable programs,

including a V8 Supercars postscript and an AFL panel show.

Did anyone notice this anywhere else?

[ger]

. SBS might scrap HD and launch a feed of BBC World, and possibly a Greek, Italian, Chinese, Arabic or Vietnamese channel.

I emailed this to SBS few months back that a there are 250K pluss greeks in Melbourne alone

and they can get ERT free as it broadcasts free on satelite

no responce from them

[sportsagent2]

We only have 20.5 million people here .

We are a guppie in a big big ocean

[BribieG]

We only have 20.5 million people here .

We are a guppie in a big big ocean

Exactly. As I pointed out on another thread somewhere, when TV in Australia started in the 50s there were suddenly 3 commercial channels and one Government channel for a population of 9 or so million.

So for the last half-century a small country has been trying to support 4 channels (and then later SBS) and the result has been that instead of providing innovative and quality programming, they have been locked in an endless ratings war and have bled each other dry.

Contrast the UK. Originally they had 2 channels with a population of 60 million and gradually, as the industry grew, they added channels one by one (BBC 2, then Channel 4 etc).

Apart from Neighbours and Home and Away, Australian TV has produced very little of international significance and has had to import most of its good quality material.

The current TV companies operate with a 'fortress' mentality and seem to be totally non-plussed by the changing entertainment environment. Fossilised seems to be the appropriate word.

[gtr73]

We only have 20.5 million people here .

We are a guppie in a big big ocean

This is a factor obviously, but I think it's more a case of . . .

. . . FTA TV will stuggle to hold its own against a wide and growing range of entertainment options, and without providing more choice, people will drift away...

. . . I think PVR's, highspeed internet and multi-media PC's will make a huge impact on FTA Digital TV in the next 5 years.

PVR's with timeshift capability are basically limiting exposure to FTA advertising, much more than VCR's ever did.

And there's over 2300 online TV stations listed on the Net, not to mention places to download the latest movies and TV series.

Home Theatre/Multimedia PC packages have also become less "Geek" and more "Chic", fast becoming another shiney box plugged into your TV cabinet with so much more ability than the ol' VCR of yesteryear.

Mr Gates and Vista have been good enough to adopt (read: try to make money from) the array of mulit-media options currently available, and with ADSL2 catching on in Oz it won't be long before people will be saying "Digital FTA TV? Wasn't that something they tried back at the turn of the century?"

Ironically, ABC is making a bit more of a go with digital and other forms of media entertainment. Unlike the commercial networks which are indeed becoming fossilised.

[matturn]

Exactly. As I pointed out on another thread somewhere, when TV in Australia started in the 50s there were suddenly 3 commercial channels and one Government channel for a population of 9 or so million.

So for the last half-century a small country has been trying to support 4 channels (and then later SBS) and the result has been that instead of providing innovative and quality programming, they have been locked in an endless ratings war and have bled each other dry.

Contrast the UK. Originally they had 2 channels with a population of 60 million and gradually, as the industry grew, they added channels one by one (BBC 2, then Channel 4 etc).

Apart from Neighbours and Home and Away, Australian TV has produced very little of international significance and has had to import most of its good quality material.

The current TV companies operate with a 'fortress' mentality and seem to be totally non-plussed by the changing entertainment environment. Fossilised seems to be the appropriate word.

How does the fact that the Australian FTA broadcasters have been amongst the most profitable in the world fit into this analysis?

If you're part of a nice small cartel of three commercial players, why on earth would you spend money on Australian content if you could legally import programs that get the same ratings for a tenth of the price? If you were part of a cartel of two, would you do that? What about a cartel of one? Would that make you more or less likely to aquire unnecessarily expensive programs?

UK TV began with one publicly owned channel in the 1930's. After a break for the second war, BBC TV was back. Then came the commercial group of affiliates ITV. This was a dozen companies that each had to bid for the right to broadcast in an area, the bidding being based on who the government thought would "do a good job". Every seven years or so, the licences were put up to tender again. The licences also had genre and other content restrictions. If a company didn't produce local programming, it would lose it's licence.

Meanwhile, the BBC was being given huge amounts of public money to produce UK programs. Given the public's preference for British programs, the ITV companies had a strong commercial incentive to produce a lot of UK programs as well.

BBC2 arrived in the 1970's. Heavily limited Channel 4 (arriving in the early 1980's) had it's advertising sold by the ITV companies for it's first decade. It was only in the early 1990's that the rise of Sky and newly freed Channel 4 gave ITV any real competition. And did ITV reduce it's local output? No. When it's licence restrictions were eased, and the licence renewal scheme effectively axed in the late 1990's, did it reduce it's local output? No. It now had to keep local to keep people watching.

And what about NZ or Ireland? Both countries only had two government owned advertising supported channels by the 1990's, when pay TV became strong in both and additional FTA licences were issued. During this period, did either country produce any major global TV sensations? No.

And what of Canada? Tonnes of cash is pumped into local production by it's government. It's population is much bigger than ours. But where are the big Canadian programs on world television? They haven't even got the soaps or things like "Water Rats" that we have.

BTW we didn't start with four channels. We started with Seven, Nine and the ABC. Ten came later. Then came SBS, pay TV and the 31s. Ads had to support two then three channels. SBS only gets 10% of it's income from ads.

Channel Nine attempted to break into India in the 1990's. It leased a few hours of prime time each week from the big ad supported public broadcaster that had universal reach. It had brand recognition from it's cricket coverage from previous years. It failed, but it had a go.

Seven attempted to break into Asia in the 1990's. It bought "Australia Television" from the ABC for that purpose (including some government funding). It failed too. Stokes still owns a share Indonesian broadcaster "SCTV" though.

Seven, Nine and BSkyB (mainly News) tried to get a contract to run the government funded successor to Australia Television in 2002. This would have given them another go at Asia. The ABC got the contract instead.

Most of Ten was bought by a Canadian company in the early 1990's. They've controlled it ever since.

Both Seven and Nine looked for the Australian future of TV in the early 1990's and saw pay TV. Nine succeed in this field, Seven didn't.

All three commercial networks looked for the future in the late 1990's and saw online. Nine now owns a major online empire. Seven has had less success online. Ten had a big go at online with "Scape" at the turn of the century, but that failed. Now they're trying again, putting a few entire TV episodes online for legal viewing.

None have turned into big production companies. Seven tried to in 1999, through the Red Heart deal with UK company Granada, but that failed. Around this time it also owned a share of MGM. It may have also been trying to start something big when it was a major partner in the production of the first series of "Blackadder" in the early 80's, but I'm not sure of the context of that move.

Nine has tried via "Nine Film and Television" and it owns a stake in Hollywood studio New Line Studios.

So the Australian networks are hardly fossilised. The UK programs you like so much were most likely made with tax dollars, or encouraged to exist by UK laws, or UK commercial competition.

The reason Australia has not made much big expensive TV is because a) the government doesn't pour a lot of money into such projects and the domestic market is small and receptive to programs from overseas.

The US has a population of nearly 300 million people. Australia is less than a tenth of that. Big expensive TV doesn't have a linear relationship to population either, it's more exponential. Only the biggest markets can really pull it off without government intervention or a company or two with a strong interest in making content, and a relatively weak one for making money.

[aztec]

Apart from Neighbours and Home and Away, Australian TV has produced very little of international significance ...

Classic

[Timmy Downawell]

One really huge factor in the UK's lead in digital TV was in the late 1990s when ITV Digital (offering digital terrestrial pay services) was competing with BskyB for customers. Competition was so cut-throat the boxes were essentially being given away by both providers.

Following the collapse of ITV Digital, hundreds of thousands of STBs were out there in people's homes just waiting for Freeview to be conceived from the fallout.

Secondly, of course, was that Freeview offered many new channels which weren't available on FTA, so of course people saw that and wanted it. Through the collusion between government and major media owners here in Australia we have been denied that choice.

EDIT: Damn, I was thinking about the thread about the UK vs AU take-up when I posted this. Oh well, it's still relevant.

[Neon Kitten]

All three commercial networks looked for the future in the late 1990's and saw online.

Which is kind of ironic, considering that it's the internet that has already started to be their downfall thanks to mass downloading of their shows (and for those who insist it's "just something geeks do", remember Napster; by the time record companies realised how widespread its use had become, the horse had well and truly bolted and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it... the same chain of events seems to now be happening to the TV networks)

Nine now owns a major online empire.

Big, yes. Popular, well, I wonder. Their sites are bloated, content-deprived and brain-dead... I often wonder who actually visits them. I know I certainly don't.

[DrP]

Nine now owns a major online empire.

Its fair to say that the Packers are far more interested in the gambling investments than their old-style media. Internet activities would rate behind gambling I imagine, but well in front of TV broadcasting (looking forwards).

[BribieG]

Matturn, thanks for filling me in on the history, I was relying on my experiences as a pom living in Britain until the late 1970's. When I arrived in Australia the most popular show was something called "Blankety Blank" or possibly "Blankety BlankS" and everybody used to hang out for the weekly "Dukes of Hazzard". Having been used to the BBC and ITV I immediately formed an impression that something was seriously wrong.

So the commercial channels have been making serious profits for all these decades. I suppose if you can brainwash the population into considering "The Biggest Loser" and "Idol" as cutting edge entertainment, then why not!

Actually, additional to my post above, there was one show that proved very popular in the UK... "Cell Block H" ... If you don't recognize the title, it was renamed in the UK because the title was too similar to a British TV show starring Patrick McGoohan. Typical dialogue sample:

"You bloody screw! You screws are all the same ... how's a girl going to survive in this place without some respect, when I get out of here I'm going to fix you up with a pine box you bloody screwwww....." Not only did they play it every day over there but my Aunty Agnes used to live for every episode!!

[AndrewWilliams]

Guppie in the Ocean? So when people claim that Australia's big 3 commercial TV networks are the most profitable in the world, they're lying?

[DrP]

Profitable WRT to viewer population.

[matturn]

Which is kind of ironic, considering that it's the internet that has already started to be their downfall thanks to mass downloading of their shows (and for those who insist it's "just something geeks do", remember Napster; by the time record companies realised how widespread its use had become, the horse had well and truly bolted and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it... the same chain of events seems to now be happening to the TV networks)

The networks understand this. Ten's strategy from 2006 reflects it strongly, they're starting to screen US shows shortly after they are in the US, and they're making some episodes available online.

Nine, Seven the ABC and SBS are taking a more MTV Overdrive approach, with their online video players. Nine also has had a vodcast news service since midway through last year, the ABC does some vodcasting, and SBS axed their nearly-vodcast news in August.

Big, yes. Popular, well, I wonder. Their sites are bloated, content-deprived and brain-dead... I often wonder who actually visits them. I know I certainly don't.

All the ratings methods say NineMSN is very popular, even when you remove the Hotmail component. I don't make much use of it myself, but other people seem to be.

Note that PBL's online empire goes beyond NineMSN, into things like the Your Guides (HWW), a big chunk of Betfair, a slice of Seek, a third of Sky News Australia, and other things.

eCorp (largely PBL) used to own 50% of Ebay Australia too, but they sold it for some reason.

So all in all, it's a substantial empire that continues to grow.

[Neon Kitten]

The networks understand this. Ten's strategy from 2006 reflects it strongly, they're starting to screen US shows shortly after they are in the US, and they're making some episodes available online.

Ten's dropped the ball on this one, at least as far as Jericho is concerned. All the viewers they kept on Ten thanks to showing the first part of the season a day or two after the US has now reverted to their "illegal" ways for that one.

They might be *beginning* to understand, but I really don't think the networks have ANY idea how widespread downloading (and the destinations for those files) are.

All the ratings methods say NineMSN is very popular, even when you remove the Hotmail component. I don't make much use of it myself, but other people seem to be.

Regular visitors to this forum will know my opinion on the methods used for collecting ratings. Basically, if I was paying for ratings and found out the methodology being used was what we have in this country, I'd fire the ratings company and find someone competent.

Note that PBL's online empire goes beyond NineMSN, into things like the Your Guides (HWW), a big chunk of Betfair, a slice of Seek, a third of Sky News Australia, and other things.

Yeah, but they don't RUN those. They acquired them, they skim profits off them, and that's that. And in the case of HWW, the ONLY reason they bought that was to put themselves in the position to sue anyone else providing the EPG their pathetic TV channel refuses to.

[Timmy Downawell]

Ten's dropped the ball on this one, at least as far as Jericho is concerned. All the viewers they kept on Ten thanks to showing the first part of the season a day or two after the US has now reverted to their "illegal" ways for that one.

Well, I haven't. Jericho was OK, but not worth a download. I can wait.

<<< yay 3000 posts for me.

[matturn]

Yeah, but they don't RUN those. They acquired them, they skim profits off them, and that's that. And in the case of HWW, the ONLY reason they bought that was to put themselves in the position to sue anyone else providing the EPG their pathetic TV channel refuses to.

Run, hands-off-but-makes-profit-from, is there that much difference? The second option is a form of outsourcing - PBL has decided that company X knows what's it's doing online and is investing in it. At the same time, owning major stakes in things makes it likely that they'll eventually be integrated into NineMSN, or will be involved in some other sort of cross-promotion.

Note that I didn't mention Fox Sports' online presence, despite Nine owning half. For some reason, News Ltd gets to control and integrate the online portion.

And BTW, HWW is a great business for other reasons. I'm amazed Fairfax or Telstra didn't buy it earlier. But I can't see why it's not a bigger part of NineMSN yet.

[Neon Kitten]

Run, hands-off-but-makes-profit-from, is there that much difference? The second option is a form of outsourcing - PBL has decided that company X knows what's it's doing online and is investing in it. At the same time, owning major stakes in things makes it likely that they'll eventually be integrated into NineMSN, or will be involved in some other sort of cross-promotion.

The one thing you're forgetting there is that Nine is categorically without the vaguest clue when it comes to anything that isn't pre-1990. Ditto PBL. That company could have CLEANED UP by now - they've had a major window to come in and dominate, and the best they can do is a lamearse partnership portal site with Microsoft.

I say again: the local "moguls" are CLUELESS.

We have no Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in this country. And we have no powerful TV moguls. We have no REAL media empire in this country. It's all little bogan boys playing with their little bogan toys. It's pathetic.

Note that I didn't mention Fox Sports' online presence, despite Nine owning half. For some reason, News Ltd gets to control and integrate the online portion.

Doomed to failure, then. But then again, it would be under Nine leadership anyway.

And BTW, HWW is a great business for other reasons. I'm amazed Fairfax or Telstra didn't buy it earlier. But I can't see why it's not a bigger part of NineMSN yet.

What reasons?

The only reason I can see for them buying HWW is as leverage for their ridiculous lawsuits against anyone who they see as "violating their intellectual property" (to which I say, as I have before, "intellectual? Channel Nine? Bwahahahahahaha!")

[Milorad]

All the ratings methods say NineMSN is very popular, even when you remove the Hotmail component. I don't make much use of it myself, but other people seem to be.

MSN (and therefore the redirect to nineMSN) is the default homepage for millions of browsers. Thats a great way to artificially inflate your hit-count.