My grandparents had the Band 1 antenna setup to watch RVN2 in Belconnen in the mid 1980s. From memory, they watched RVN2 more than Capital 7 as it had better programming.
5 Likes
Great to see some surviving installations.
Pre-aggregation, CTC 7 wasn’t a very popular station among locals, they searched for other choices.
Despite the terrain, the Band I, low freq of Mt Ulandra TXs 0 and 2 propagate an adequate signal in hilly sections as well as the flat plains to the west, ensuring maximum coverage in an area starved all over for commercial TV choice at the time.
Masthead amps would have been needed and signal not always watchable for many in Canberra.
Also remember that RFI levels were much lower in the pre-aggregation era, so interference was much less that in its final years.
The Canberra Times published RVN TV listings as they had ambitious plans for circulation well beyond the Canberra city limits as we know them. Of course a newspaper listing doesn’t guarantee reception within a circulation area.
5 Likes
Interesting that (to me) the installation looks to have been maintained and even updated at some point as that antenna design looks more recent that 1989.
1 Like
A cynic might suggest it was CTC’s lack of popularity with our elected representatives spending time in the capital that may have led to (or at least accelerated) the plans for aggregation in the first place
There’s a lot of antennas set up for RVN around that part of the world, both towards Canberra and Griffith where the local offerings were limited at the time. In the latter case this continued for much longer as MTN wasn’t within the aggregated markets, so the locals out west added UHF aerials to the Band I setups they had in order to improve their viewing choices
1 Like
I don’t recall seeing many RVN-2 set ups on ACT rooftops on my visits to Canberra over the years…??
But yes, Canberra was otherwise a difficult place in which to get TV reception of other stations from…
If Capital 7 was really not very popular with locals, they would have been one reason of why aggregation was introduced, and also because the politicians didn’t have the TV choices that most of them had in their seats in the mainland state capitals when coming to Canberra for parliamentary sittings. Along with the obvious reason that aggregation would have been a big vote winner in the bush,
2 Likes
Responding to discussion in the “Classic TV Listings” thread here to avoid going too off topic:
And of course, Stateline was launched in February 1996 (remarkably Wikipedia got the launch date right, although no mention of airing at 6pm for the first five years there) so that the ABC could continue to cover state/territory-based current affairs.
Presumably all* local presenters of The 7.30 Report of the time would’ve taken on the role as the host of Stateline in their respective markets?
*The most notable exception being New South Wales, with The 7.30 Report’s 1990-94 presenter Quentin Dempster becoming the host of our edition of Stateline after the death of Andrew Olle (who presented the NSW version of The 7.30 Report during 1995 AFAIK) in December 1995.
Not sure about that. Mary Delahunty was the Victorian host of The 7.30 Report but I’m pretty sure she didn’t go over to Stateline.
1 Like
IIRC Ian Henderson hosted Stateline initially, then Kathy Boland who read the news on weekends after Sue Macintosh was given the boot.
1 Like
Concidently, Vietnam is my hometown…
The main reason for aggregation was that, yes, it was a easy vote winner for Labor, it also gave the Country (Nationals) Party a kick in the arse too. Regional TV was seen as a haven for the Country Party - let’s face it, in most cases you had a monopoly, a license to print money as it were, and who’d want to stop a good thing. Some were into the idea of aggregation (Prime Network namely, there were one or two others), and some weren’t (NBN and WIN, unsurprisingly, maybe more). Shame both sides couldn’t even do that right!
4 Likes
Interesting for our Brisbanites - TV Cynic i’m looking at you! - to note. The building in the end cap looks sooo much to me like the new “Tower of Power” in Brisbane.
2 Likes
all the networks (if you see the small print!) put their name to a brochure, dated about 1986, arguing against aggregation:
and here’s the small print zoomed in:
But Prime did later emerge as a supporter of it.
Southern Cross in Victoria fought it hard based on them being landed Ten affiliation by default as Nine and Seven got signed up by VIC TV and Prime.
I can’t imagine WIN (RTQ7) being very enthusiastic about QLD given that they were to be aligned to Ten, but then did that last minute deal with Nine which changed their outlook no doubt.
1 Like
In Shepparton, Victoria, in addition to the local GMV6 and the ABC most people were able to receive RVN’s sister station AMV4 Albury and BCV8 Bendigo, to this day you will still see these tall antenna setups on older houses in Shepparton. And Mechsta you’re right, RVN2/AMV4 had better programming than CTC7 or GMV6, judging by looking at the TV guides from the past.
Yeah that sort of thing was common place here in Newcastle as well. Many a house had a large rooftop antenna so we could get 7,9 and 10 from Sydney
1 Like
There was only one station who thought Aggregation was a good idea from the outset-STV Mildura, but they got dumped out of the Victorian approved market, in favour of AMV. When licencees had to choose between the means to get to full Aggregation- immediate, or a few years of multi-channel operations first, they all publicly chose the later, including WIN, right up until the day they had to inform the government (SNSW being the first market). WIN surprised everyone by announcing they would favour immediate Aggregation, so CTC and CBN/RVN we’re forced to follow, as it was a one in-all in requirement specified by the Government. Once that market was decided, most licensees in the other approved markets generally favoured immediate Aggregation, I think Southern Cross might have been the only station that preferred multi channel to the end.
3 Likes
They were probably in favour given the massive boost in viewers they’d have picked up in the other regions while the neighbouring channels only would pick up a relatively small number from within the much smaller Mildura market yet still have to fund the expansion of their transmission there. I guess that’s why Mildura ultimately got ruled out?
Interesting that I have just noticed that MTN9 and ITQ8 were also not named on that brochure. Were they included in the original scope for aggregation or were they always to be excluded from the concept?
Surprised that CTC were not in favour given their ownership by Kerry Stokes who was tied up in the Ten Network. I just assumed CTC would have preferred aggregation to tie in with the network.
Bizarre concept that only one operator gets to sway the whole region across. Bruce Gordon was pals with the Packers though, right? I guess they sweet talked him into going along with it at the last minute.
The Canberra Times also published listings for WIN4 in Wollongong, although it was not receivable anywhere in the ACT, it was in surrounding districts such as Goulburn, Braidwood (both via fortuitous reception) as well as Bateman’s Bay (in WIN’s primary service area, via a translator, also a popular beach holiday spot with Canberrans), I presume those areas also were in the main circulation area for the Canberra Times.
2 Likes
I know thine is an Amercian Television History moment but still one I find fasinating from a technical stand point.
It was 30 Years Ago Today that the Infamous Max Headroom Intrution incident occured in Chicago.
Here’s a couple of YouTube Clips to give you an idea of what happened.
Here’s some news reports of the incident from the following day
The culprits to this day have never been caught
8 Likes