Finally, someone acknowledging regional Australia supremacy.
The reality is that regional markets are more likely to have a greater proportion of older viewers, who in turn are more likely to have older, MPEG-2 only equipment. It makes sense to test any changes in regional markets first, because that’s where you’ll get feedback en masse (as discussed elsewhere in this thread).
Another reason why I think they are doing it because the (capital city) media (newspapers) will be less likely to make a fuss over it if doesn’t succeed in regional areas.
And they’ll use the regional results to justify a metro roll out if all goes well.
Are there any regional transmitters that rely directly on metro transmission? Could that be part of the reason?
Geelong is one, because Geelong doesn’t have a local TV service, the Highton transmitter which carries TV channels is essentially taking the Melbourne ones, Anglesea/Aireys Inlet’s transmitter included. Exact copies of Melbourne with a few seconds delay.
For Geelong to have the best HD quality pictures (in MPEG-4 HD) at the moment would be for the technicians at the Highton and Anglesea translators to add the Ballarat channels.
Even though Geelong isn’t officially part of the Western Victoria TV license area, it could be utilised as a test case for Geelong residents to see if the MPEG-4 HD service from Ballarat in the region is successful. If it is, they might keep it on until the Melbourne channels upgrade their channels to MPEG-4 SD/HD.
Geelong is part of the Melbourne metro TV license area, don’t confuse it to being regional for TV.
Radio & TV license areas are different in almost every market, just because Geelong is a different (regional) radio market to metro Melbourne, doesn’t mean it is for TV.
In Victoria Anglesea & Wye River are the only regional license areas that have metro translators, & that’s only under a special arrangement going back many years that the regional license holders couldn’t provide a regional translator service there because it was “too hard to do” & apparently at the time a lot of politicians used to holiday in those areas & couldn’t get any TV at all, so they told the metro stations to do it.
I’m not aware of anywhere else in a regional TV license area that has metro TV translators, there’s a number of overlap areas though that may have one or the other or both.
This was answered in the previous post.
I’d assume costs for broadcasters is a factor.
Aging MPEG-2 only equipment would be coming up on needing replacement I’d guess might be driving a lot of the timing, and there’s costs in the duplication of the HD/SD simulcasts of the main channels, which for a regional network would be almost as much equipment as all the multichannels for the metro networks.
Eliminating that duplication would be a good cost saving - while SCA on the other hand is just not investing and hoping their equipment chugs along until a buyer comes in. I assume that would be why Tasmania had an organised switch between all the networks, but that hasn’t happened since, yet WIN/Seven have still made the switch.
Probably best belongs here.
Just got back from Christmas drinks at my sisters newly built house.
Her son comes out saying he can’t get into 9Now to stream Carols by Candelight. Turns out their new house doesn’t have a TV aerial!
She said when they were having their house built, the builders asked her if they wanted a TV antenna and she said “No”. She said the builders were “horrified” by her response.
She says she doesn’t watch much free to air and that it never worked very well in the last couple of houses she had, despite not living in a blackspot.
I didn’t get started on the advantages of having terrestrial TV, but once they got logged in, 9Now worked well enough for the time we streamed the Carols.
That’ll be the future. Forget the aerial, it will spoil the view.
And when I was a kid, I used to think that big antennas looked attractive!
Well, not everyone has rhat sort od taste and interest and so on.
TV antennas remind you of man’s ability to produce broadcasts.
They still do
But just not as attractive as they used to!
I still like them though.
All the young ones stream 9Now, Im only 23 and I still prefer Aerial TV
I will admit I still prefer aerial tv but streaming just solves so many issues that you can have with aerial tv.
I use a PVR, that (for me) more than compensates for the advantages of streaming (ie pause and rewind, though there is no ‘start over’ functionality unless you had your PVR on at the start)…
And the big advantage being you can fast forward through the ads when watching on chase play/catch up. And no faffing about with logins, device authorisations, much easier to switch between networks etc.
I’m a regional viewer, and for me the aerial is a good option to have as it allows me access to the (albeit diminishing) local news content. But I also still have all 5 FTA apps set up on my smart TVs just in case the aerial is for some reason not working, as I also have a disability and can’t always fix the TV quickly.
( Oh and I’m in my 30’s. Would I count as young?)
I was talking to someone the other day who is building a new house and they aren’t allowed to have an antenna, but the development they will live in has no other means to deliver TV signals (Opticomm can deliver it via Fibre to the house)
Perhaps inside the roof cavity depending on the materials and insulation.