Industry fears new TV station

[NewsMan]

A big increase in the number of television channels and an entire new
station are among the options under consideration in a review of digital TV
policy announced by the federal government yesterday.

As well as issuing a fourth commercial TV licence, the federal government is
looking at removing the ban on "multichannelling", which stops broadcasters
from using their spare digital spectrum to transmit more than one channel.

While the aim of the review is to give audiences more choice and
interactivity, it could also intensify competition between free-to-air and
pay TV broadcasters, diluting audiences and advertising revenue.

The free-to-air industry immediately attacked the option of allowing a sixth
TV network in addition to the existing selection of the SBS, ABC and three
commercial stations.

"The US has six TV networks servicing some 270 million people," a Channel
Seven spokesman said. "In the UK the population is 60million and there are
five TV networks. If we had another [commercial TV] licence it would be
another TV network serving only 20million people."


The industry disagrees about proposals for multichannelling, however. The
federal Communications Minister, Daryl Williams, is considering letting TV
networks charge audiences for the additional channels if the ban on
multichannelling is lifted.

That would satisfy Kerry Stokes's Channel Seven, which has lobbied hard to
be allowed to multichannel.

But it would infuriate Kerry Packer, who believes it would fracture Channel
Nine's audience and undermine his ability to earn advertising revenue.

It would also alarm pay TV provider Foxtel - in which Mr Packer's Publishing
& Broadcasting Ltd has a 25 per cent interest - threatening its recent
investment in a digital network with a much bigger number of channels.

Channel Ten opposes multichannelling but that may change if it is allowed
allowed to charge.......



--
Details:
http://www.afr.com/premium/articles/2004/05/10/1084041336657.html

More news:
http://www.auspaytv.com.au/forums/ipdl.php

***

Seeing a murder on television can help work off one's antagonisms. And if
you haven't any antagonisms, the commercials will give you some.
-- Alfred Hitchcock

[Garry]

Can some one tell me why multi channelling was banned in the first place ??

[Gronk221]

"Garry" <emergencymonitor@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:51Vnc.31462$TT.29816@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Can some one tell me why multi channelling was banned in the first place
??
>

AND if multi channelling is/was banned, WTF was ABC Kids and FlyTV ?

Gronk

[Danny Rohr]

"Gronk221" <gronk221@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:h5Vnc.31470$TT.7747@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> "Garry" <emergencymonitor@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:51Vnc.31462$TT.29816@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Can some one tell me why multi channelling was banned in the first place
> ??
> >
>
> AND if multi channelling is/was banned, WTF was ABC Kids and FlyTV ?

Multi-channeling is only banned on the commerical channels, eg, Not the ABC
or SBS.

Jeepers, I wish they would allow multichanneling now, that way we can suck
in the general public who think more channels is somhow going to offer more
quality TV, and then switch of analogue, leaving heaps of bandwidth for
20M/bits 1080i HDTV channels.

Danny.

[Mike]

Garry wrote:
> Can some one tell me why multi channelling was banned in the first place ??

Because the three existing commercial channels are already mostly padded
with game-shows, reality TV, old re-re-re-runs, home shopping, and
countess advertising sessions thinly diguised as
travel/rennovation/lifestyle programs. How much more dreck would they
need to fill up multichanneling???
A poet once said "Got thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose
from". In the US, thats way out of date now. Anyone who has tried
american cable will know that more is not better.

Multi-channelling would be good for the armchair sports fans, but
they all have cable or satellite already anyway.

[Michael Garibaldi]

Mike wrote:

> Garry wrote:
>
>> Can some one tell me why multi channelling was banned in the first
>> place ??
The FTA channels pushed HD instead of multi channelling & Foxtel also
didn't want the FTAs to offer it.
>
>
> Because the three existing commercial channels are already mostly padded
> with game-shows, reality TV, old re-re-re-runs, home shopping, and
> countess advertising sessions thinly diguised as
> travel/rennovation/lifestyle programs. How much more dreck would they
> need to fill up multichanneling???
> A poet once said "Got thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose
> from". In the US, thats way out of date now. Anyone who has tried
> american cable will know that more is not better.
>
It wasn't a poet... It's a line in a Pink Floyd song.(The Wall: Nobody Home)

> Multi-channelling would be good for the armchair sports fans, but
> they all have cable or satellite already anyway.

[Gronk221]

"Michael Garibaldi" <garibaldi9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40a03161$0$13706$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Mike wrote:
>
> > Garry wrote:
> >
> >> Can some one tell me why multi channelling was banned in the first
> >> place ??
> The FTA channels pushed HD instead of multi channelling & Foxtel also
> didn't want the FTAs to offer it.
> >
> >
> > Because the three existing commercial channels are already mostly padded
> > with game-shows, reality TV, old re-re-re-runs, home shopping, and
> > countess advertising sessions thinly diguised as
> > travel/rennovation/lifestyle programs. How much more dreck would they
> > need to fill up multichanneling???
> > A poet once said "Got thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose
> > from". In the US, thats way out of date now. Anyone who has tried
> > american cable will know that more is not better.
> >
> It wasn't a poet... It's a line in a Pink Floyd song.(The Wall: Nobody
Home)

Roger Waters wasn't a poet ?

[Mike]

In article <40a02a69$1@quokka.wn.com.au>, nospam.really@westnet.com.au says...
>
>Garry wrote:
>> Can some one tell me why multi channelling was banned in the first pla
>ce ??
>
>Because the three existing commercial channels are already mostly padded
>
>with game-shows, reality TV, old re-re-re-runs, home shopping, and
>countess advertising sessions thinly diguised as
>travel/rennovation/lifestyle programs. How much more dreck would they
>need to fill up multichanneling???
> A poet once said "Got thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose
>from". In the US, thats way out of date now. Anyone who has tried
>american cable will know that more is not better.
>
> Multi-channelling would be good for the armchair sports fans, but
>they all have cable or satellite already anyway.

[Anthony Horan]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 07:11:26 +1000, NewsMan wrote:

> The industry disagrees about proposals for multichannelling, however. The
> federal Communications Minister, Daryl Williams, is considering letting TV
> networks charge audiences for the additional channels if the ban on
> multichannelling is lifted.
>
> Channel Ten opposes multichannelling but that may change if it is allowed
> allowed to charge.......

And how exactly do they plan to charge for multichanneling? My STB doesn't
have anywhere to put a subscriber card, nor do any others that I've seen.
If they expect customers to buy another STB they'll be producing channels
that nobody sees.

It's called FREE to air for a reason :)


- Anthony

[David Sidwell]

Indeed. NASA TV springs to mind as one example. A subset of technology, but a
start.

Also, I thought that our ABC and the BBC had a 'special' relationship. I'm
sure the BBC could also provide some little_or_no charge content (not UKTV!).

I wonder if rights to the more classic science series (Cosmos, The Ascent of
Man, Life on Earth, even Walking with <variable> etc) are exclusive, meaning
that if cable has grabbed them, then the ABC can't show them. I'm sure they
could easily fill a spare channel with repeats. Yeah, I know they are repeats,
but basic science doesn't change that much...


erazmus@iinet.net.au (Mike) wrote:

>There are heaps and heaps of documentaries,
>science shows, engineering, law, medicine etc.
>
>Having at least one extra channel that raises
>the basic technology level of the public through
>exposure to diversity is one useful potential
>for multichanelling for commercial as well as
>abc/sbs.
>
>Pity the pollies arent thinking long term and
>not aware of basic philosphy of exposure
>in education...
>
>mike
>
>
=====

David Sidwell
Melbourne Australia

[Mike]

Mike wrote:
> There are heaps and heaps of documentaries,
> science shows, engineering, law, medicine etc.

On _commercial_ TV ?? ABC & SBS are allowed to multichannel now.
Oh yes, plenty of medical shows. "Ultimate Makeover" being an example.

[Mike]

In article <40a2001f@quokka.wn.com.au>, nospam.really@westnet.com.au says...
>
>Mike wrote:
>> There are heaps and heaps of documentaries,
>> science shows, engineering, law, medicine etc.
>
>On _commercial_ TV ?? ABC & SBS are allowed to multichannel now.

But there is no direction from upper management or pollies to
use this for any sort of long term issue like raising the
technology and awareness level of the general public, which
is sadly lacking, plus of course there is no money for this
even though the channels are already there and transmitting
but copy of the primary channel :(

>Oh yes, plenty of medical shows. "Ultimate Makeover" being an example.

This is not what I was getting at, I want to see wider technical
subjects, like automotive, production engineering, medical
procedures of the leading edge kind, human resource, philosophy,
civil engineering projects, space sciences, pure science etc.

The point I was making is that there is heaps of spare channel
capacity reserved with copies of the primary channel but not
being used because the pollies are so narrow minded :(

Rgds

mike

[yipee yahoo]

'Bout frickin' time !!

Thankuverymuch ;-)

Uncle Wally ;-)

================================================== =======================


"NewsMan" <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<c7or5s$la3$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...
> A big increase in the number of television channels and an entire new
> station are among the options under consideration in a review of digital TV
> policy announced by the federal government yesterday.
>
> As well as issuing a fourth commercial TV licence, the federal government is
> looking at removing the ban on "multichannelling", which stops broadcasters
> from using their spare digital spectrum to transmit more than one channel.
>
> While the aim of the review is to give audiences more choice and
> interactivity, it could also intensify competition between free-to-air and
> pay TV broadcasters, diluting audiences and advertising revenue.
>
> The free-to-air industry immediately attacked the option of allowing a sixth
> TV network in addition to the existing selection of the SBS, ABC and three
> commercial stations.
>
> "The US has six TV networks servicing some 270 million people," a Channel
> Seven spokesman said. "In the UK the population is 60million and there are
> five TV networks. If we had another [commercial TV] licence it would be
> another TV network serving only 20million people."
>
>
> The industry disagrees about proposals for multichannelling, however. The
> federal Communications Minister, Daryl Williams, is considering letting TV
> networks charge audiences for the additional channels if the ban on
> multichannelling is lifted.
>
> That would satisfy Kerry Stokes's Channel Seven, which has lobbied hard to
> be allowed to multichannel.
>
> But it would infuriate Kerry Packer, who believes it would fracture Channel
> Nine's audience and undermine his ability to earn advertising revenue.
>
> It would also alarm pay TV provider Foxtel - in which Mr Packer's Publishing
> & Broadcasting Ltd has a 25 per cent interest - threatening its recent
> investment in a digital network with a much bigger number of channels.
>
> Channel Ten opposes multichannelling but that may change if it is allowed
> allowed to charge.......
>
>
>
> --
> Details:
> http://www.afr.com/premium/articles/2004/05/10/1084041336657.html
>
> More news:
> http://www.auspaytv.com.au/forums/ipdl.php
>
> ***
>
> Seeing a murder on television can help work off one's antagonisms. And if
> you haven't any antagonisms, the commercials will give you some.
> -- Alfred Hitchcock

[ferret]

yipee yahoo wrote:

> 'Bout frickin' time !!
>
> Thankuverymuch ;-)
>
> Uncle Wally ;-)
>
> ================================================== =======================
>
>
> "NewsMan" <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<c7or5s$la3$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>
>>A big increase in the number of television channels and an entire new
>>station are among the options under consideration in a review of digital TV
>>policy announced by the federal government yesterday.
>>
>>As well as issuing a fourth commercial TV licence, the federal government is
>>looking at removing the ban on "multichannelling", which stops broadcasters
>>from using their spare digital spectrum to transmit more than one channel.
>>
>>While the aim of the review is to give audiences more choice and
>>interactivity, it could also intensify competition between free-to-air and
>>pay TV broadcasters, diluting audiences and advertising revenue.
>>
>>The free-to-air industry immediately attacked the option of allowing a sixth
>>TV network in addition to the existing selection of the SBS, ABC and three
>>commercial stations.
>>
>>"The US has six TV networks servicing some 270 million people," a Channel
>>Seven spokesman said. "In the UK the population is 60million and there are
>>five TV networks. If we had another [commercial TV] licence it would be
>>another TV network serving only 20million people."
>>
>>
>>The industry disagrees about proposals for multichannelling, however. The
>>federal Communications Minister, Daryl Williams, is considering letting TV
>>networks charge audiences for the additional channels if the ban on
>>multichannelling is lifted.
>>
>>That would satisfy Kerry Stokes's Channel Seven, which has lobbied hard to
>>be allowed to multichannel.
>>
>>But it would infuriate Kerry Packer, who believes it would fracture Channel
>>Nine's audience and undermine his ability to earn advertising revenue.
>>
>>It would also alarm pay TV provider Foxtel - in which Mr Packer's Publishing
>>& Broadcasting Ltd has a 25 per cent interest - threatening its recent
>>investment in a digital network with a much bigger number of channels.
>>
>>Channel Ten opposes multichannelling but that may change if it is allowed
>>allowed to charge.......
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Details:
>>http://www.afr.com/premium/articles/2004/05/10/1084041336657.html
>>
>>More news:
>>http://www.auspaytv.com.au/forums/ipdl.php
>>
>> ***
>>
>>Seeing a murder on television can help work off one's antagonisms. And if
>>you haven't any antagonisms, the commercials will give you some.
>>-- Alfred Hitchcock

Great, just what we need. Another channel to show more reality shows.

[Bob Is Not My Uncle]

Mike wrote:

> In article <40a2001f@quokka.wn.com.au>, nospam.really@westnet.com.au says...
>
>>Mike wrote:
>>
>>>There are heaps and heaps of documentaries,
>>>science shows, engineering, law, medicine etc.
>>
>>On _commercial_ TV ?? ABC & SBS are allowed to multichannel now.
>
>
> But there is no direction from upper management or pollies to
> use this for any sort of long term issue like raising the
> technology and awareness level of the general public, which
> is sadly lacking, plus of course there is no money for this
> even though the channels are already there and transmitting
> but copy of the primary channel :(
>
>
>>Oh yes, plenty of medical shows. "Ultimate Makeover" being an example.
>
>
> This is not what I was getting at, I want to see wider technical
> subjects, like automotive, production engineering, medical
> procedures of the leading edge kind, human resource, philosophy,
> civil engineering projects, space sciences, pure science etc.
>
> The point I was making is that there is heaps of spare channel
> capacity reserved with copies of the primary channel but not
> being used because the pollies are so narrow minded :(
>
> Rgds
>
> mike
>


Even a tourist channel, latest things to do and see in your city that
sort of stuff.

Or a 2hr delay version of the main channel would be cool , like foxtel.
It would really screw up ratings but hey, they get a 2nd chance at
showing the adds too.

Management are boring sods with never any good ideas, since all they do
is have long expensive lunchs and meetings nonstop.