multichannels, 5 large media companies per city

[Ext User(Greg Alexander)]

The AFR had an article about Senator Coonan's digital TV ideas.

Basically, it looks like the suggestion (to all parties is)
- more sports to Foxtel (less on the anti-siphon list)
- free multichannelling is okay from 2007 (though sport on the
anti-siphon list has to be on the analog channel)
- ABC/SBS can add drama and news to their multichannels.
- 2 datacasting channels will be sold (again!) - this time to someone
with innovative ideas rather than highest bidder.
- 5 large media companies in each city, 4 in each regional area.

All up it sounds pretty good to me - she's made a reasonable compromise
that also works well for the digital TV future.

I particularly like the "5 large media companies" in each city rule, it
really allows print, radio, tv, etc to join in whatever way the market
goes. Sydney currently has News, PBL, Seven, Fairfax, Ten, Austereo,
ARN, Village.... I wonder what are considered media companies, and
which are 'large'?

Only 3 questions I have
1) what about HDTV?
2) what about mpeg4 compression (10 SD channels, or 2-3 HDTV channels)?
3) should she be considering the impact of IPTV on digital and pay
systems?

Any thoughts?
Greg
source: http://www.knowfirst.info/forums/showthread.php?t=6578

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> The AFR had an article about Senator Coonan's digital TV ideas.

> Basically, it looks like the suggestion (to all parties is)
> - more sports to Foxtel (less on the anti-siphon list)
> - free multichannelling is okay from 2007 (though sport on the
> anti-siphon list has to be on the analog channel)
> - ABC/SBS can add drama and news to their multichannels.
> - 2 datacasting channels will be sold (again!) - this time to someone
> with innovative ideas rather than highest bidder.
> - 5 large media companies in each city, 4 in each regional area.

> All up it sounds pretty good to me - she's made a reasonable
> compromise that also works well for the digital TV future.

What matters is what she can sell to the party
room, even if that is what she is keen on.

> I particularly like the "5 large media companies" in each city rule,

Sounds implausible that the govt will be that prescriptive.

> it really allows print, radio, tv, etc to join in whatever way
> the market goes. Sydney currently has News, PBL, Seven,
> Fairfax, Ten, Austereo, ARN, Village.... I wonder what
> are considered media companies, and which are 'large'?

I doubt the govt will even bother to define either.

> Only 3 questions I have
> 1) what about HDTV?

Its unlikely the govt will attempt to be prescriptive on that.

> 2) what about mpeg4 compression
> (10 SD channels, or 2-3 HDTV channels)?

> 3) should she be considering the impact
> of IPTV on digital and pay systems?

Likely too hard to allow for so that aspect will be ignored.

> Any thoughts?

Dont bother with those anymore, they make my head hurt.

[Ext User(Anthony Horan)]

On 26 Jul 2005 18:03:53 -0700, Greg Alexander wrote:

> Basically, it looks like the suggestion (to all parties is)
> - more sports to Foxtel (less on the anti-siphon list)

A big relief. Sports nuts are the main customers for Foxtel, and those who
only have free-to-air are thoroughly tired of sport preempting pretty much
anything else.

> - free multichannelling is okay from 2007 (though sport on the
> anti-siphon list has to be on the analog channel)

Why wait for a year and a half? Just let 'em do it now. I can't see what
purpose a lengthy delay like that would serve - except, of course, to move
the introduction of those extra channels closer to the next federal
election...

> - ABC/SBS can add drama and news to their multichannels.

They should always have been able to. The current situation is farcical.

> - 2 datacasting channels will be sold (again!) - this time to someone
> with innovative ideas rather than highest bidder.

That'll be a first for a government, then :)

> 2) what about mpeg4 compression (10 SD channels, or 2-3 HDTV channels)?

What about it? Nobody has hardware that supports it. Do you really think the
government's going to force 150,000 STB and PVR owners to throw out their
investment and start again?

Is MPEG4 really capable of decent quality anyway? Yes, I've seen Divx/Xvid
captures of HD TV shows, and they look pretty damn good - except, of course,
for all the compression artifacts, most visibly the posterisation and loss
of detail in backgrounds.


- Anthony

[Ext User(Greg Alexander)]

Rod Speed wrote:
> Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > she's made a reasonable
> > compromise that also works well for the digital TV future.
>
> What matters is what she can sell to the party
> room, even if that is what she is keen on.

Agreed. And not just that - they're asking all the large media
companies to agree, or forget all the changes.

> > I particularly like the "5 large media companies" in each city rule,
>
> Sounds implausible that the govt will be that prescriptive.

Well, they have the goal of maintaining diversity of media, to balance
with the increasing cross over of media technologies. What would you
prefer? What do you think the government will do?

> > 1) what about HDTV?
>
> Its unlikely the govt will attempt to be prescriptive on that.

They already prescribe HDTV minimums etc.
Are you saying it's unlikely they'll prescribe HDTV standards, or
unlikely they'll drop the ones they already prescribe?

Personally I think she'll leave that to individual companies.

> > 2) what about mpeg4 compression
> > (10 SD channels, or 2-3 HDTV channels)?
>
> > 3) should she be considering the impact
> > of IPTV on digital and pay systems?
>
> Likely too hard to allow for so that aspect will be ignored.

I agree.
Though I think it'll be more important that her reforms eventually.

[Ext User(Greg Alexander)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2005 18:03:53 -0700, Greg Alexander wrote:
> > - free multichannelling is okay from 2007
>
> Why wait for a year and a half? Just let 'em do it now.

Good question.
I guess that it's because 9, 10, Foxtel all say they don't want
multichannelling.
(actually PBL might be of 2 minds... good for 9, bad for Foxtel?)

> I can't see what purpose a lengthy delay like that would serve
> - except, of course, to move the introduction of those extra
> channels closer to the next federal election...

Good point!

> > - 2 datacasting channels will be sold (again!) - this time to someone
> > with innovative ideas rather than highest bidder.
>
> That'll be a first for a government, then :)

yeah interesting.... and who judges what's "innovative".
And if she's smart enough to recognise one 'media' market with her
newspaper/TV/radio ownership reforms, how does that fit with
restricting datacasting from doing TV?

> > 2) what about mpeg4 compression (10 SD channels, or 2-3 HDTV channels)?
>
> What about it? Nobody has hardware that supports it. Do you really think the
> government's going to force 150,000 STB and PVR owners to throw out their
> investment and start again?

Well, if HDTV gets dropped, the owners of more expensive boxes are
going to be angry. A lot of the interactive features aren't available
on current set top boxes, these things are all happening slowly.

I agree nobody will want their boxes to be obsoleted. Would that change
if they could get twice as many channels? Or if the government setup a
"trade-in" program to cheaply switch? I doubt the TV channels could
handle having that many channels anyway.... though multiple HDTV
channels would be nice.

> Is MPEG4 really capable of decent quality anyway? Yes, I've seen Divx/Xvid
> captures of HD TV shows, and they look pretty damn good - except, of course,
> for all the compression artifacts, most visibly the posterisation and loss
> of detail in backgrounds.

Indications are that it can. The Divx stuff works out to be the
equivalent of 1.2Mbps, and MPEG4-10 is a new generation (with higher
processing requirements too!). I think that amount of compression means
the 'recording' is no longer HD, the lack of detail in the background
etc I'd say it's slightly less than SD.

There's an awful lot of money going into the compression and
decompression hardware/software at the moment for both HDTV and the
next-gen DVDs.

[Ext User(phil_herring@yahoo.com.au)]

Greg Alexander wrote:

> 1) what about HDTV?

No chance. What the networks want are extra channels of SD, so they can
screen more ads, and make more money.


-- Phil.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote

>>> she's made a reasonable compromise
>>> that also works well for the digital TV future.

>> What matters is what she can sell to the party
>> room, even if that is what she is keen on.

> Agreed. And not just that - they're asking all the large
> media companies to agree, or forget all the changes.

I doubt that on the detail.

>>> I particularly like the "5 large media companies" in each city rule,

>> Sounds implausible that the govt will be that prescriptive.

> Well, they have the goal of maintaining diversity of media, to
> balance with the increasing cross over of media technologies.

Yes, but that can be achieved in a number of ways.

> What would you prefer?

Basically the existing channels should be allowed to do what
they like on multichannelling, basically so we dont get the
programming schedules disrupted by major sporting events.

Cant see the govt going for that tho, basically because it would
be politically difficult to tell the voters that if they want to be able
to watch anything available, they would need to go to a set top box.

> What do you think the government will do?

Looks like they have come to their senses on the stupid
limitations imposed on the ABC and SBS on multichannelling,
and have a lot more freedom now the senate is irrelevant.

I dont expect them to allow much in the way of new players
tho, because they need the current media to pay the substantial
cost of digital TV and the last thing they need is for the current
players to play silly buggers and ignore it now.

They will likey bin most of the sillier cross media restrictions.

But not allow full open slather, particularly not new channel players.

>>> 1) what about HDTV?

>> Its unlikely the govt will attempt to be prescriptive on that.

> They already prescribe HDTV minimums etc.

Sure, but thats not anything like as prescriptive
as what is claimed they will be requiring.

> Are you saying it's unlikely they'll prescribe HDTV standards,

No, I meant they are unlikely to be prescriptive on the number
of 'major media players' or be silly enough to try defining that.
And that they are unlikely to prescribe more than they currently do.

> or unlikely they'll drop the ones they already prescribe?

Thats harder to predict. They certainly do want to encourage
the use of DTV, but not necessarily HDTV over SDTV etc.

> Personally I think she'll leave that to individual companies.

Yeah, I do too.

>>> 2) what about mpeg4 compression
>>> (10 SD channels, or 2-3 HDTV channels)?

>>> 3) should she be considering the impact
>>> of IPTV on digital and pay systems?

>> Likely too hard to allow for so that aspect will be ignored.

> I agree.
> Though I think it'll be more important that her reforms eventually.

Sure, but too hard to factor in to policy choices. Impossible actually.

[Ext User(bacco|007)]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:10 +1000, Anthony Horan wrote:


> Why wait for a year and a half? Just let 'em do it now. I can't see what
> purpose a lengthy delay like that would serve - except, of course, to move
> the introduction of those extra channels closer to the next federal
> election...

Sounds like another attempt to appease Foxtel - Foxtel asked for a
moritorium on multichannelling to allow their Digital product to penetrate
the market further