Coonan Talks About Digital Tv

[matturn]

Channels A & B

If one subscribes to the theory that new content complements digital take-up as well as improved picture quality then the Government’s decision to allocate two new digital television channels this year, known as Channel A and Channel B, is great news.

Many of you are already aware that Channel A will allow new free-to-air, in-home digital television services, augmenting that which you can presently access.

Channel B might be used for a wider range of services, including for mobile television.

I am anticipating that the ACCC will be making an announcement shortly in relation to its deliberations regarding appropriate access undertakings for Channel B.

I have decided not to impose any competition limits relating to the sale of Channels A and B, but the general competition restrictions contained in the Trade Practices Act will continue to apply.

I currently have a variety of other matters under consideration, including ensuring that Channel A services reach a significant majority of homes in both metropolitan and regional Australia.

The auction documents will be released by ACMA in relation to both Channels in the coming months.

We are very keen to avoid the spectrum being used for ‘same old’ services, which would be unlikely to excite consumers into investing in digital technologies.

Again, I am bemused by the Labor Party’s position in this area. Whilst we are forging ahead with exciting new digital services, Mr Tanner and Senator Conroy are toying with the idea of a fourth free to air television network – a ‘back to the future’ policy, if you will.

In my view, a fourth network would deliver very little in the way of new media benefits for consumers.

By contrast, the new services which we are introducing, once up and running, will contribute to diversity and innovation in the Australian market.

Comment: Unrestricted channels bad, heavily restricted narrowcasting and subscription TV good.

Mutichannelling

Multichannelling is another important part of the journey to digital.

The legislation permits commercial free-to-air television stations to broadcast one standard definition multichannel from 2009, and will allow full multichannelling no later than the time of digital switchover.

There is no longer a simulcast requirement for high definition programming and so high definition multichannelling is now able to occur.

The entertainment possibilities for viewers once the free to air broadcasters make full use of their multichannelling opportunities are endless as I am sure the Pay TV industry is only too keen to point out.

And it’s great to see the broadcasters choosing to move early to deliver high quality broadcasts to their viewers.

I was pleased to hear that Channel 10 is already planning to broadcast both the US Masters and its AFL games in high definition this year – which is fantastic news for sports fans.

Whilst the focus is often upon the commercial free to air broadcasters, it was also important that the national broadcasters are similarly able to move with the times.

To that end, the “genre” restrictions which had limited the types of programming which can be shown on ABC and SBS multichannels have now been removed.

Now pretty much anything that might be broadcast on the ABC and SBS main channels, with the exception of the premiere of an anti-siphoning list sport, can be broadcast on their multichannel.

Comment: Unrestricted channels good.

She also spoke about the Digital Action Plan, focusing on the necessity for "Digital Australia", the proposed digital TV switchover advertising body.

[Timmy Downawell]

I am surprised ABC and SBS have moved so slowly following the dumping of their genre restrictions. I can see a glimpse of it on ABC2 with the return of Sylvania Waters, but I really hope they will make more of their newfound freedom and offer a better choice for viewers.

[alanh]

Matturn,

I don't know how many channels of HD multichanneling you expect. There is barely enough data bandwidth for 1 HD and 1 SD channel using MPEG2 compression. If we adopted MPEG4 compression for all new HD channels then this would be different.

Since NZ and Europe are now adopting this standard for HD then STBs will become cheap. Then there is a chance for more HD multichannelling. This is because the data compression is at least twice as efficient.

AlanH

[BribieG]

I am surprised ABC and SBS have moved so slowly following the dumping of their genre restrictions. I can see a glimpse of it on ABC2 with the return of Sylvania Waters, but I really hope they will make more of their newfound freedom and offer a better choice for viewers.

Apart from dollars, what is stopping ABC from multichanneling now? They had 2 different shows going on Election night in QLD earlier in the year on the 'HD' channel and the 'SD' channels and I understand they did the same in NSW recently. They basically do this during the evening news as they can't broadcast state-specific materials on HD.

The HD channel aside, ABC SD comes out on a number of channels (e.g. 2 and 22 where I live) so could they broadcast different shows on each of those channels or am I being too simplistic here?

Another tack could be to broadcast nationwide 'specials' on the HD channel such as movies or nature shows, when 720p native programs are not being shown. This would not be available to all viewers (eg analog) but eventually everyone will be able to receive HD channels so that objection would resolve itself in a few years.

[Timmy Downawell]

I don't know how many channels of HD multichanneling you expect. There is barely enough data bandwidth for 1 HD and 1 SD channel using MPEG2 compression.

Alan, by "HD multichannelling" they don't mean adding extra HD channels, they simply mean that the existing HD channels are no longer required to simulcast their respective SD counterparts, e.g. Nine and Nine HD would be two different channels, if only they decided to take advantage of the new rules.

[Timmy Downawell]

The HD channel aside, ABC SD comes out on a number of channels (e.g. 2 and 22 where I live) so could they broadcast different shows on each of those channels or am I being too simplistic here?

In that instance, Channel 22 is just pointing to the main channel, so it's not taking up two channels worth of bandwidth.

Best case scenario for ABC would be ABC, ABC2 and ABC HD each running independent content. There's not enough space to squeeze in another SD channel without severely squeezing the bandwidth of the existing channels... not to mention the stink the HD brigade would kick up.

[matturn]

Best case scenario for ABC would be ABC, ABC2 and ABC HD each running independent content. There's not enough space to squeeze in another SD channel without severely squeezing the bandwidth of the existing channels... not to mention the stink the HD brigade would kick up.

Better outcomes could be obtained using MPEG4 or discontinuing HD altogether, but both would upset some people.

[betty boop]

Better outcomes could be obtained using MPEG4 or discontinuing HD altogether, but both would upset some people.

i've certainly appreciated the improvments comign through with hd. with the likes of ch20 goign to 720p, ten upgrading their 1080i and ch 7 experimenting with 1080i as well. main issue is still bit rate all networks still starve their broadcast for bitrate leading to image artifacts and other imprefections spoiling the lovely picture quality we should be having. not sure re mpeg4 have heard some contradicting info there. what I have had glimses of shows we can have great hd on our networks the networks jsut need to back it up with technology needed.

[Shonky*]

MPEG4 vs MPEG2 is definitely better, but wouldn't that obsolete a lot of set top boxes out in the field and thus piss off joe consumer who's just spent $5k on a TV with a built in HD tuner? He'd then most probably need to buy an external STB.

Sure some could potentially be upgraded (very dependent on how they work internally), but many wouldn't.

Personally, it's not a big deal for me, since my MythTV PVR uses software decoding so really it is a software upgrade for me.

[tonygib]

MPEG4 vs MPEG2 is definitely better, but wouldn't that obsolete a lot of set top boxes out in the field and thus piss off joe consumer who's just spent $5k on a TV with a built in HD tuner? He'd then most probably need to buy an external STB.

No, it would obsolete EVERY set top box or TV with built in tuner. The only ppl that it wouldn't bother too much, would be those of us that use PC Card's, then its just the software that would need an update, which given enough warning, could already be in place before any such broadcast starts.

Still, its not going to happen, convincing Joe Public to go with Digital TV as it is is hard enough, just imagine what they would all think if under 10 years after its intro, the 'standard' gets changed. It would delay analogue switch off even more and most likely just make ISP's, etc happy, giving them more time to deploy iTV.

Sure some could potentially be upgraded (very dependent on how they work internally), but many wouldn't.

A highly highly doubt it, its all specific chip set, etc, so I could see anyTV of STB being 'upgraded', would only work if it already had mpeg4 decode features and hence just needed a firmware update, but I think you'll find all current units just have mpeg2, since that is our standard.

[betty boop]

No, it would obsolete EVERY set top box or TV with built in tuner. The only ppl that it wouldn't bother too much, would be those of us that use PC Card's, then its just the software that would need an update, which given enough warning, could already be in place before any such broadcast starts.

Still, its not going to happen, convincing Joe Public to go with Digital TV as it is is hard enough, just imagine what they would all think if under 10 years after its intro, the 'standard' gets changed. It would delay analogue switch off even more and most likely just make ISP's, etc happy, giving them more time to deploy iTV.

A highly highly doubt it, its all specific chip set, etc, so I could see anyTV of STB being 'upgraded', would only work if it already had mpeg4 decode features and hence just needed a firmware update, but I think you'll find all current units just have mpeg2, since that is our standard.

yeah I cant see it happening. if it was going to happen it should have years back. too late now. and anyways as evidenced hd in this country can be pretty damn good. it jsut needs some decent bit rates to support itand we can have some lovely pics some day.

[yabbal]

Again, I am bemused by the Labor Party’s position in this area. Whilst we are forging ahead with exciting new digital services, Mr Tanner and Senator Conroy are toying with the idea of a fourth free to air television network – a ‘back to the future’ policy, if you will.

In my view, a fourth network would deliver very little in the way of new media benefits for consumers.

By contrast, the new services which we are introducing, once up and running, will contribute to diversity and innovation in the Australian market.

Yes Mrs Coonan, people are going to be so much happier with a new boating channel and other narrow casting channels then they ever would have been with another comercial network!?! Whatever you need to tell yourself....

[191]

and anyways as evidenced hd in this country can be pretty damn good. it jsut needs some decent bit rates to support itand we can have some lovely pics some day.

No offense to the HD zealots out there...

I prefer analogue PAL to HD-lite. What's the point of 1080i for sports such as AFL when there is CONSTANT macroblocking.

From my point of view, the Government has short changed the general public. They've sold digital TV on solving reception issues but mention nothing about the bit starved nature of digital TV. This is blatant deception.

I for one will shed a tear when all we have as FTA TV will be 11 Mbps HD blockovision.

I can't believe people are so eager to swallow crap, just for a resolution boost and widescreen.

If you want to have HDTV at 11-14 Mbps then you simply need a better codec than mpeg2 (aka Mpeg 4 like in Europe at 16Mbps). Yes, even at 16Mbps h.264 has coding artefacts but they're no where near as offensive because of the codec and bitrate used.

So, for all those "it can't be done" people concerning mpeg2 elimination, well as far as I can see, there needs to be a re-salvage of some bandwidth. Boo hoo for government greed selling off spectrum, mandate HDTV in mpeg 2 codec at no less than 17Mbps. Why can't this be done? What are the 'can't be dones' with that suggestion?

I just can't accept this defeatist attitude and acceptance of mediocrity - especially when the decision will last a lifetime. There are plenty of options available.

11 Mbps HD blockovision in 2035??? No No No No.

Someone with more experience and knowledge of the industry give me a solution. Even if you think it "can't" be done.

End rant

[tonygib]

yeah I cant see it happening. if it was going to happen it should have years back. too late now. and anyways as evidenced hd in this country can be pretty damn good. it jsut needs some decent bit rates to support itand we can have some lovely pics some day.

yes, well, a bit rate increase I guess it more hopefull once analogue is turned off, but then the government is more likely to just want to sell it all off.

So, for all those "it can't be done" people concerning mpeg2 elimination, well as far as I can see, there needs to be a re-salvage of some bandwidth. Boo hoo for government greed selling off spectrum, mandate HDTV in mpeg 2 codec at no less than 17Mbps. Why can't this be done? What are the 'can't be dones' with that suggestion?

Well, maybe its more a can't be done at the moment. MPEG2 is the standard, you can't just switch that over to MPEG4 in a heart beat, it would more or less be no different then going digital in the first place (which at the moment is going to take 12 years). If you where going to use MPEG4 for HD, then you may as well use it for SD as well and remember, its not just the 2 million or so STB's and TV's that would all need to be replaced, its the TV station broadcast equipment as well.

But will we still have MPEG2 in 2035, most likely not, but then I'm far from sure we will have much of a FTA broadcast TV system (especially if FTTN or FTTH takes off) by then either. Hell, PBL is already moving more 'online'.

Everything is changing and much like digital radio is turning out, digital TV was more about blocking new competition and holding onto ones ground as much as possible (just look at the music industry in relation to the new digital world).

[matturn]

No, it would obsolete EVERY set top box or TV with built in tuner. The only ppl that it wouldn't bother too much, would be those of us that use PC Card's, then its just the software that would need an update, which given enough warning, could already be in place before any such broadcast starts.

I remember when Austar came to my town. My TV instantly became obsolete... I remember when UHF TV came to my town, the old VHF only sets became obsolete and the UHF dial tuning ones became annoying... Before my time colour television came in, and then stereo sound. People had to get new tellies then to get the new services, but they continued to get what they were getting before with their old gear.

As long as the current channels remain in MPEG2, new channels, like those on Channel A, can be MPEG4 and people have lost nothing. They've just not gained.

[Proud Queenslander]

In that instance, Channel 22 is just pointing to the main channel, so it's not taking up two channels worth of bandwidth.

Best case scenario for ABC would be ABC, ABC2 and ABC HD each running independent content. There's not enough space to squeeze in another SD channel without severely squeezing the bandwidth of the existing channels... not to mention the stink the HD brigade would kick up.

Channel 22 is called ABC National. It uses the sporting content from ABC New South Wales. For example, Channel 22 televises the Australian Women's Netball League and New South Wales rugby union competition from 2:00pm and 3:00pm respectively each Saturday. ABC Queensland airs the Queensland Wizard Cup (Queensland's premier rugby league competition run by the Queensland Rugby League) and Australian Women's Netball League from 2:00pm and 4:00pm respectively. In this regard, Queenslanders have a bit of choice each Saturday, as they can watch the best second-tier rugby league premiership in the world, or watch the best club rugby competition in Australia.

Edited May 13, 2007 by A Man From Brisbane

[GoForMoe]

Channel 22 is called ABC National. It uses the sporting content from ABC New South Wales.

No it doesn't. 22 is called 'ABC TV' it redirects to the same feed that you see on channel 2 or 'ABC City Name'. Channel 20, 'ABC HD' is the one that you sometimes see NSW content on interstate

[nthnthn]

Why do we have HD on terrestrial in the first place? It's a waste of bandwidth, and the channels don't have the data rate to support it in really good quality anyways?

Could it be so hard to just move everything HD to satellite? The HD crowd are in the minority and they have more money, and satellite will allow them to get a better HD channel, with the full 18 or whatever Mbps. For an investment of a dish, some quad-shield and a new tuner times 3. Which will cost to them as much as a MPEG-4 transition, which still wouldn't offer perfect HD.

And then everybody with current DVB-T receivers could get their channel choice, with the channels being available on satellite too.

Perhaps with the launch of Optus D2, we could see this happen. I don't want to know what the government wants to say about this, though.

[Proud Queenslander]

No it doesn't. 22 is called 'ABC TV' it redirects to the same feed that you see on channel 2 or 'ABC City Name'. Channel 20, 'ABC HD' is the one that you sometimes see NSW content on interstate

A search under the National TV section of the ABC.net.au TV Guide for the 12th of May revealed the following:

2:00pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

3:00pm Rugby Union

Source: ABC.net.au National Guide, 12th of May 2007

The Queensland section revealed the following results for the 12th of May:

2:00pm Rugby League:

4:00pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

Source: ABC.net.au Queensland Guide, 12th of May 2007

The New South Wales section revealed the following results for the 12th of May:

2:00pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

3:00pm Rugby Union

Source: ABC.net.au NSW Guide, 12th of May 2007

The Victoria section revealed the following results for the 12th of May:

1:00pm VFL Football 2007

4:00pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

Source: ABC.net.au Victoria Guide, 12th of May 2007

The Western Australia section revealed the following results for the 12th of May:

1:00pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

2:00pm WAFL Live League Football 2007

Source: ABC.net.au Western Australia Guide, 12th of May 2007

The South Australia section revealed the following results for the 12th of May:

1:30pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

2:30pm The SANFL

Source: ABC.net.au South Australia Guide, 12th of May 2007

The Tasmania section revealed the following results for the 12th of May:

1:00pm Hockey: Tasmania: 2007

2:00pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

3:00pm VFL Football 2007

Source: ABC.net.au Tasmania Guide, 12th of May 2007

The ACT section revealed the following results for the 12th of May:

2:00pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

3:00pm Rugby Union

Source: ABC.net.au Tasmania Guide, 12th of May 2007

The Northern Territory section revealed the following results for the 12th of May:

1:30pm Netball: The Commonwealth Bank Trophy 2007

2:30pm Deadly Rivals

3:00pm Rugby Union

Source: ABC.net.au Northern Territory Guide, 12th of May 2007

Based on the aforementioned results, I believe it is fair to conclude that Channel 22 uses the same sporting content that is shown on ABC NSW.

[austruckie]

Why do we have HD on terrestrial in the first place? It's a waste of bandwidth, and the channels don't have the data rate to support it in really good quality anyways?

Could it be so hard to just move everything HD to satellite? The HD crowd are in the minority and they have more money, and satellite will allow them to get a better HD channel, with the full 18 or whatever Mbps. For an investment of a dish, some quad-shield and a new tuner times 3. Which will cost to them as much as a MPEG-4 transition, which still wouldn't offer perfect HD.

And then everybody with current DVB-T receivers could get their channel choice, with the channels being available on satellite too.

Perhaps with the launch of Optus D2, we could see this happen. I don't want to know what the government wants to say about this, though.

Alternatively if we got rid of SD and put the bit rate into HD-T we could reasonable HD available at a reasonable cost for most people given that LCD is HD and plasma HD isnt hugely dearer particularly if volume up as no SD plasma sold, or manufactured. This is just as valid as your proposal

[nthnthn]

Alternatively if we got rid of SD and put the bit rate into HD-T we could reasonable HD available at a reasonable cost for most people given that LCD is HD and plasma HD isnt hugely dearer particularly if volume up as no SD plasma sold, or manufactured. This is just as valid as your proposal

True. And with your suggestion, only those who are on SD on DVB-T, not HD would have to replace their hardware with a satellite dish.

However, the reason I'm going to disagree is that SD is a more essential service. It should therefore be the default on DVB-T, which has the advantage of only needing a $50 box, as opposed to a dish and another STB if it were HD that was kept on DVB-T, which would also require a larger investment. And no one would lose their current SD channels, which is important for areas such as Tasmania with TDT.

[austruckie]

True. And with your suggestion, only those who are on SD on DVB-T, not HD would have to replace their hardware with a satellite dish.

However, the reason I'm going to disagree is that SD is a more essential service. It should therefore be the default on DVB-T, which has the advantage of only needing a $50 box, as opposed to a dish and another STB if it were HD that was kept on DVB-T, which would also require a larger investment. And no one would lose their current SD channels, which is important for areas such as Tasmania with TDT.

I think you missed my point

[beeblebrox]

Alternatively if we got rid of SD and put the bit rate into HD-T we could reasonable HD available at a reasonable cost for most people given that LCD is HD and plasma HD isnt hugely dearer particularly if volume up as no SD plasma sold, or manufactured. This is just as valid as your proposal

What and trash 5 plus million SD TVs ???? Sure that's something the government will do...

Move HD to Satellite that's funny....

Hey I've got an idea rather than giving people cash for the baby bonus so they can go out and choose which flat screen thehy buy why don't we just give them a HD one when they leave hospital with their new borns....

[bellotv]

I have heard many references to the government selling off the old analog bandwidth.

Does anyone know what services are likely to buy and occupy these channels interspersed with Digital tv channels ?

If we stick with Mpeg2 perhaps these old analog channels should be retained by their respective present owners and become dedicated full bandwidth HD channels instead .Obviously Band 1 channels will need re-allocation.

RE. Mpeg2 v Mpeg4

As most modern electronic equipment has a life generally not exceeding3-4 years then why not phase in STB that have dual Mpeg decoding capability now.Lets face it ,most analog tvs sold in Australia in the last 5-10 years have had PAL/NTSC /SECAM decoders built in (and Australia is a PAL only country).Why can't we do this for STBs IE have Mpeg2/4?

If Mpeg4 is superior and the way we should go then in a few years all will have Mpeg4 capable decoders and the old Mpeg 2 boxes will have died in the arse anyway and be tip fill.

The price of a new STB or PVR to keep any existing Plasmas/LCD's with inbuild tunes is nothing

[nthnthn]

Why can't we do this for STBs IE have Mpeg2/4?

In a nutshell, MPEG2 is going to be around for quite a while yet, and analogue broadcasting is still happening. So, why would anybody want to adopt a standard that is old (MPEG 4)? Especially around 2012, which is still some time away. It seems more than likely that by then, H.264 will become much more prevalent or probably something like Dirac might shine through.

So, it's too early to make any decisions on standards until they're actually needed. If dual-standards are ever likely to happen.

In a nutshell, what would the problems with getting HD over satellite be? If it would allow for a greater number of channels on DVB-T, then why not go for it?

Furthermore, a normal HD channel and a HD+2 channel should be all that's needed, from Lord Howe Island to Western Australia. It's not like local news needs to be in HD.