[LINK] IPTv

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Stilgherrian wrote:
> On 14/04/2010, at 6:47 AM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> There's been more than ten years, I suppose, of "the Internet will kill 
>> TV". Everything about TV was seen as wrong: the content was crap (mostly 
>> I agree), the model of the passive viewer is outdated, etc ...
>>
>> Now, the letters "IP" become a magic fairy dust that you sprinkle on TV 
>> to make it cool. As long as you're distributing Desperate Housewives or 
>> Cougars or whatever on the Internet, it's suddenly the Next Big Thing.
>>
>> I don't quite get that ...
> 
> My guess is that there's folks who reckon they can be the next batch of media magnates, running highly profitable "TV networks" via IP, replacing the highly profitably (well, once upon a time) broadcast TV networks.

I don't know, I appreciate the odd episode or two of
Desperate housewives. Though it is Home and Away that earns
Channel 7 its Free to Air license and I would guess substantial
OS revenue. It is also worth noting that Channel 7 owns unwired.

NITV is asking viewers to email their support to keep it on
the Sydney Airwaves.
>The Australian Government has not yet committed to a future 
for NITV.
> This means we will have to switch off from midnight 30 June 2010. We need your support.
> Please send your message of support to help keep us on air to  friends at nitv.org.au
> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
<http://nitv.org.au/>

...and SBS 1 & 2 are certainly providing a bit of diversity.

There is also some bloke who wants us to tell someone we
need to keep Sport on Free to Air...I feel like registering
my vote to take it off.

Though this would probably be like when I wrote to the Local
Council saying I did not want foxtel cables in my street, as
TV could be delivered wirelessly. They wrote back to say
that I should be pleased they had made foxtel bury the
cables. Then there was the incessant correspondence from
Foxtel offering deals...

> 
> What they clearly don't understand, it seems to me, is the fragmentation. Broadcast TV networks were only highly profitable because there were so few channels. Yes, Big Fat Licence Fees were paid, and big fat production costs too (with large numbers of expensive hangers-on), but those concentrated audiences brought big fat advertising revenues. Online, there's an infinite number of channels, so everything's spread more thinly. 
<snip>

True fragmentation is a problem, but it would appear that
the fallout of the GFC is not over and advertising budgets
have probably been cut. Also, I suspect global companies are
now doing more product placement in TV shows.

Marghanita
-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://ramin.com.au
Tel: 0414-869202