Why? The HD channels are localized too, so they could run the same ads.
I was under the impression that 7mate HD in QLD only had a “north” and “south” feed.
But if they do have 7 different HD feeds, I then assume that under the scenario that @NQCQTV2 is suggesting of simulcasting 7 on 7mateHD, it would mean no 7mate in regional QLD for the duration of the Games, which would mean no AFL, which would probably be in breach of their AFL contract.
7mateHD is a local feed in each market with local ads, etc.
I see no reason why they can’t still run the AFL on 7mateHD whenever needed, and just replace “normal programming” with Comm Games coverage simulcast when available.
1 Like
That’s 7flix.
2 Likes
Brisbane and regional QLD are 7flix’s best markets too (according to OzTam and RegTam year-to-date shares).
There are probably other people like me who have deleted/hid the standard definition versions of the main channels and only watch them in high definition. Temporarily abandoning the full-time simulcast of Seven and 7HD would be confusing for some viewers. If Seven wanted to broadcast the AFL in high definition in Melbourne and Adelaide on the day before ANZAC Day and still show MKR, I think a better solution would have been to put the AFL on Seven and 7HD and MKR on 7Two or 7mate. If Seven are going to show their main channel in high definition it should be full-time without exception, I think.
3 Likes
Especially when the AFL match got more viewers than MKR in Melbourne on April 24 last year!
4 Likes
It isn’t the network’s concern if people make their own decision to delete some of their channels.
2 Likes
Agreed. And what about all those AFL games they showed in SD on 7Mate and not in HD on the primary channel during the Commonwealth Games? Didn’t they matter as well?
2 Likes
BTW, sorry that it’s off topic, but does anyone know what happened to the mooted extra horse racing channel for Seven?
1 Like
It appeared to be “fake news”. It was just Seven showing Sydney racing on one of their existing channels.
4 Likes
Is this not the reason in not having a second HD channel as SBS has done!,yes I understand MPEG2 v MPEG4 situation viewers are in,but its about time networks think about the majority and not the minority put everything on MPEG4 and those .0009% will have to spend $40 for a stb?
1 Like
Not sure where you got that percentage from but when 7Flix went the other way (from MPEG4 to MPEG2) its ratings almost doubled suggesting a significant percentage of receivers and PVRs that can’t receive MPEG4.
Also bear in mind that SBS has one less multichannel than Seven and Nine
2 Likes
It’s a complex question to answer, but all the networks simply have different configurations when it comes to getting channels from the playout centre to the transmitters and on our TVs at home. Just because one network has the capability to do something doesn’t necessarily mean they all do!
Although I’d probably agree that all channels should be in MPEG4 HD, the networks are not going to annoy the significant amount of people who don’t have access to those services. And they definitely won’t make their main channel MPEG4 HD-only until a vast majority of the population (case in point: analogue switchoff) can access the newer signal.
Seven basically admitted that a lot of people don’t have access to MPEG4 channels when they ran that “now available on more TVs” promotional campaign for 7Flix when the channel went to MPEG2 which probably only happened at all because of 4ME’s demise. Also since many viewers still watch the main channels in MPEG2 SD, the networks probably don’t want to turn down the bandwidth of those widely viewed services too low in fear of viewer complaints.
In fairness we have to account for the four radio services SBS has on DVB-T, but with the audio streams at 128kbps each (making for a combined total of 512mbps) they probably don’t use that much bandwidth in the grand scheme of things.
Seven and Nine need another HD Channel to their tally.
4 Likes
Like me
That was almost two years ago. Wonder if the impact would be as bad now?
1 Like
Definitely less now. BUT:
What percentage drop in audience share would be acceptable to a network? Eg if 30% of the audience decides to not make any change so they can receive the MPEG4 channel/s this year and instead watch the competitors’ MPEG2 mutichannels is that an acceptable loss? It is not as if the multichannels are an essential service to many people - unless you are looking for some specific program or sport, it’s easy to get by with the remaining 16 or so channels. Even if it was 5% - would a network accept that - would they get any more viewers because that had HD multichannel?
2 Likes
There’d probably be more households with MPEG4-capable equipment now compared to two years ago, but I think most wouldn’t upgrade their 2nd TVs or PVRs for as long as they can still see all the channels (most probably still watch SD broadcasts over the HD broadcasts) and the equipment still works.
While people like us might get new stuff on a more frequent basis, I’d imagine the majority of the population would only consider upgrading to a new TV once every decade or so.
One would imagine 0%, especially when multichannels can sometimes be the difference between finishing 1st and 2nd in network shares.
Exactly. The TV we’ve got in the bedroom is 6 years old and only MPEG2 compatible, and it’s still functionally and cosmetically perfect. There’s no reason to replace it, and to do so would feel like a waste.
I do have a set top box connected to it, but often I’m too lazy to move the stuff that’s in front of it and find the remote, so settle for the SD channels, which don’t look too different on the smaller screen.
(But I’ll always watch HD in the lounge)
5 Likes