[LINK] Freeview Launches In Australia

[Richard Chirgwin]

David Boxall wrote:
> At 2:46 AM Michael Still wrote:
>   
>> Netflix streaming video -- $99 for a hardware player, HD content like 
>> you'd find on a DVD (assuming you have enough bandwidth to stream at 
>> that quality). Subscription $9 a month, if you're not already a customer 
>> (which many people in the US are).
>>
>> Mikal
>>     
> And 1Mb/s downloads priced at close to $50 per gigabyte: 
> <http://www.bluemaxx.com.au/satellite/plans.html>.  In Australia, at 
> least, the cost structure doesn't support the market.  My best landline 
> option is 128kb/s ISDN (too slow for streaming): on that, $11 will buy 
> me 30 hours. 
>   
I did this exercise a few months back, so it's out of date but still
startling. On ADSL the effective price per gig ranges from about 50c per
gig as high as $15. So it's only attractive for people who can get fast
plans *and* lay out on a plan with a nice big cap *and* know how to buy
broadband.

Aren't we manifesting a little "ecco homo" syndrome in this discussion -
assuming that because we like streaming video, everybody does?

As evidence I would offer (excuse the self-promotion) an interview this
week with a Canadian researcher who spoke at the green IT forum last
week (http://www.itradio.com.au/networking/) about the Internet as a
"green" technology through travel replacement. Her view (and mine) is
that the 'ordinary' user isn't anywhere near as into streaming - or
video chat, for that matter - as the enthusiast believes them to be. (I
would also suggest from experience that there are people who will demand
the videoconferencing, but will jealously guard business travel as a
status symbol).

Referring back to the David Dale column I mentioned previously:
"This year, viewers in the mainland capitals spent an average of 22
hours and 11 minutes a week gazing at the box... We're actually watching
more this year."

Other salient points are that the growth in audience is among older
people, but that younger viewers "aren't out of the game entirely". If
you look at his percentages, a loss of 10% of TV time in under-16s and
7% in the 16 to 39 age bracket is significant, but IMO you'd have fun
reconciling reported online time versus reported TV time ...

I found the link at last:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/we-really-are-a-nation-of-couch-potatoes/2008/11/23/1227375057004.html

(Ha! How's this for an unsupported assertion - mine, not David Dale's -
the growth of broadband is good for TV. It means people aren't spending
so long waiting for the dial up links...)

Cheers,
RC