HDTV gets a black eye

[23skidoo]

Didn't see this coming: one of the major networks in Australia has announced it is actually abandoning HDTV, at least for entertainment programs.

The ABC network (ABC being unrelated to the American ABC, but nonetheless still the Australian equivalent to NBC or CBS or US-ABC) has announced it is converting its ABC-HD network to a 24-hour news channel. The channel will still air HD programming, but entertainment programs will no longer air in HD, just SD on the regular ABC. According to the article it may be 2013 before they try HD entertainment again. It also says the network hasn't been airing completely HD programs anyway, with Doctor Who only airing in SD, for example.

The article suggests a lack of acceptable HD content is to blame, maybe due to the cost over SD (referencing Doctor Who again).

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2010/05/abc-drops-hd-shows-for-abc-news-24.html

Not that I see this as a death knell or a "fail" for HDTV or anything, but gee I thought everyone was jumping hook, line and sinker into the whole HDTV trend? Not so fast, I wager. (Mind you, its worth noting that some parts of the world never saw color TV until the 1980s. The Bahamas (using an example) never even had any local TV broadcasts until 1977! Nonetheless, Australia is I believe in the top 10 TV markets in the world, so this is at least a bit of a shiner for HDTV.

Alex

 

[FordSVT]

I see this mostly as a sign that Aussie network is too cheap or broke and they can't afford to buy enough content to meet the HD licensing requirements in your country, not as a rejection of the format. I mean really, how much more could ticking off the HD Doctor Who option really cost them if enough people watched their channel? Even our broke-ass CBC broadcasts in HD.

Over the next few years the cost of shooting HD will come down as it becomes the standard for all production companies and there will be no choice but to broadcast it.

 

[Marc]

I see this mostly as a sign that Aussie network is too cheap or broke and they can't afford to buy enough content to meet the HD licensing requirements in your country, not as a rejection of the format. I mean really, how much more could ticking off the HD Doctor Who option really cost them if enough people watched their channel? Even our broke-ass CBC broadcasts in HD.

Over the next few years the cost of shooting HD will come down as it becomes the standard for all production companies and there will be no choice but to broadcast it.

It's more a complex that than in.

In Australian for tv media you've got 6 FTA to stations
The ABC and SBS (owned by the Government but run as corporations and SBS get some revenue from carrying ads).

The Nine Network was owned by Kerry Packer's PBL but his son has sold a large chunk to merchant bankers and it's got a shitload of debt.

The 7 network is owned by Western Australian Kerry Stokes.

The 10 Network was recently sold (not sure who bought) after being owned by the CanWest group in Canada (who are in deep financial trouble) and has always struggled.

Then there's Foxtel which is the predominant cable/satellite carrier that's owned by Packer/Murdoc (25%) each and Telstra (50%).

This is in a country with the population the size of Los Angeles.

Ad revenues are shrinking and there's a lot of competition form channel BT (think the U.S netowrks are bad for pre-emptions etc etc the Australian ones are worse).

The move to Digital required the government giving the networks a shitload of benefits (tax breaks, handouts and the digital spectrum for zilch).

 

[Rii]

It's been years since I've actually watched TV, but I assume that ABC's content is still largely non-fiction and britcoms. Doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't be particularly enamoured of HD.

 

[FPAlpha]

I don't know anything about Australia media environment but HD is also slow to catch up here in Germany as far as TV is concerned.

The cable channels are reluctant to invest costs in HD when the returns are so meager, i.e. many households in Germany do have new flatscreen TVs with HD capabilities but use them mainly for BD or games.
So they won't invest too much into HD because they won't get decent returns.

The government channels have some separate HD channels (mainly news and some specialist stuff) because they don't have to make a profit (instead throwing out money like it was candy ).

The people themselves haven't arrived in the digital age fully meinly because the costs are comparably high.. there are some options to get premium HD content but you most likely have to subscribe to some company providing it so it quickly adds up. This is not good for an environment where people are used to get free TV (government) and low priced cable TV in SD quality. To get decent HD they would need to at least double their monthly fees and most likely buy specialist hardware to be able to see HDTV and people are reluctant to do that.

 

[Hermiod]

Sky here in the UK will make up for any channel closures. They're planning to go to 55 HD channels soon.