Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Derpus]

The Optus debacle will have scared a few sports rights holders off for a bit you'd think

I assume you mean their bungled implementation?

I would have thought the only boundary to widespread uptake of streaming services in Australia is our third-world rate internet speed and accessibility. NBN is rolling out slow as fuck and in it's current bastardized state is barely an upgrade, plus it's plagued with reliability issues.

5G might be a viable option if sufficient data is affordable. Streaming programs are by far the most data intensive use of internet for regular users (far more so even than games for example) for the time being. So whilst you might get sufficient speeds from 5G to stream HD rugby, you will run out of data in about 2 hours. And that's just 720-1080p. Once higher resolutions become standard data use will be an order of magnitude higher.

Times might be a-changing for the rest of the world but i don't think we've managed to escape the Murdoch noose. He certainly had a hand in neutering the NBN and let's be honest; who wouldn't choose Fox over the Optus clusterfuck?

Beyond that streaming is the clear winner. Personalized consumption of media is pretty much expected now. Netflix, etc. Anecdotally, i don't own a TV and i don't seem to be abnormal among my age group.

 

[dru]

Beyond that streaming is the clear winner. Personalized consumption of media is pretty much expected now. Netflix, etc. Anecdotally, i don't own a TV and i don't seem to be abnormal among my age group.

I really don't think that many working through media have a deeply held inherent understanding of this statement.

Discussions here about FTA, in anything other than a one-off or temporary manner, are simply last century. We hang on to the idea of FTA as we have friends and elder relatives who cant afford Foxtel and would be onboard with FTA.

In the mean time to look optimistically toward a growing supporter group we need to look to habits of the younger generations. And no longer that young for goodness sake, and no longer nascent but a very developed and mature trend.

Time to get into the digital age.

 

[Derpus]

I really don't think that many working through media have a deeply help inherent understanding of this statement.

Discussions here about FTA, in anything other than a one-off or temporary manner, are simply last century. We hang on to the idea of FTA as we have friends and elder relatives who cant afford Foxtel and would be onboard with FTA.

In the mean time to look optimistically toward a growing supporter group we need to look to habits of the younger generations. And no longer that young for goodness sake, and no longer nascent but a very developed and mature trend.

Time to get into the digital age.

Yeah i'm nearly 30 ay. I have a grown up job and everything.

 

[dru]

Yeah i'm nearly 30 ay. I have a grown up job and everything.

What a clever marketing plan - ignore everyone under 30.

 

[Derpus]

What a clever marketing plan - ignore everyone under 30.

Pretty standard isn't it?

I mean, people tend to be fairly self serving and all the people making decisions in the game and in a broader context are kinda old. Not really surprising they have no interest in tailoring things to a younger market.

It's a classic generational thing.

 

[Up the Guts]

I really don't think that many working through media have a deeply help inherent understanding of this statement.

Discussions here about FTA, in anything other than a one-off or temporary manner, are simply last century. We hang on to the idea of FTA as we have friends and elder relatives who cant afford Foxtel and would be onboard with FTA.

In the mean time to look optimistically toward a growing supporter group we need to look to habits of the younger generations. And no longer that young for goodness sake, and no longer nascent but a very developed and mature trend.

Time to get into the digital age.

I wasn't really aware of this problem until during the Super Season Foxtel went down and the only device I could watch the game was on my phone through the Foxtel app (for some reason the app isn't compatible with my computer). Pretty shitty way to watch the game and I was pretty astounded I couldn't pick up a stream from somewhere on my computer.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Pretty standard isn't it?

I mean, people tend to be fairly self serving and all the people making decisions in the game and in a broader context are kinda old. Not really surprising they have no interest in tailoring things to a younger market.

It's a classic generational thing.

I am in my mid-70s and have been doing a fair bit of caravaning this past year. I have Foxtel Now with three packages including sport, and unlimited download on my mobile phone plan. Where adequate wifi isn't available, I set the phone up as a hot spot and wifi to the laptop with a HDMI connection to the TV in the caravan. Works a treat, and beats any streaming experience I have had otherwise.

 

[dru]

I am in my mid-70s and have been doing a fair bit of caravaning this past year. I have Foxtel Now with three packages including sport, and unlimited download on my mobile phone plan. Where adequate wifi isn't available, I set the phone up as a hot spot and wifi to the laptop with a HDMI connection to the TV in the caravan. Works a treat, and beats any streaming experience I have had otherwise.

Much the same here. Hotspot laptop from phone if I have to, wifi mirror to TV to watch in large format. I can use the internet interface on the "smart" TV but I find it too clunky. Been watching the QRU stream of premier all season this way.

 

[kiap]

I really don't think that many working through media have a deeply help inherent understanding of this statement.

Discussions here about FTA, in anything other than a one-off or temporary manner, are simply last century. We hang on to the idea of FTA as we have friends and elder relatives who cant afford Foxtel and would be onboard with FTA.

In the mean time to look optimistically toward a growing supporter group we need to look to habits of the younger generations. And no longer that young for goodness sake, and no longer nascent but a very developed and mature trend.

Time to get into the digital age.

I think you're slightly wrong on this. Derpus is perhaps a little closer with his Personalized consumption of media call. His comments are also on the mark regarding the NBN and a future 5G, the likely limitations of which he is aware.

It's not about the digital age. We've been there since last century, and that includes terrestrial broadcast television – the FTA platform here.

Most people do not care (or even understand) much about the delivery process for their media consumption. All they really care about is the service.

That's regardless of whether they might be Gen Z Millennials or whatever. Sure, media services these days need to be able to deliver content to a multitude of devices. That's a given. But I wouldn't be ditching terrestrial digital broadcasting anytime soon. It will be key to a large share of the audience for a long while yet, particularly for sports.

Why sports? Because the biggest demand for the content is for it to be high quality, reliable and—most of all—LIVE. Being live means that the personalized consumption modes can be outmatched by broadcast. The bandwidth available on Australian 7 MHz channels is large. You can send 4K (and even 8K) video quite easily and waaaay cheaper than via 5G or FTTP rollouts which will take many years and dollars.

You don't need a TV to receive this, the chips can be built into small devices, even a phone (obviously it's a bit pointless watching even HD on a phone but the point remains). For 4K it's a compressed stream of around 30 Mbit/s - with NO network congestion.

The real point here is not to get too hung up on writing off one media platform (or technology) for another. It's converging and will largely largely come down to cost (and, inevitably, politics).

BTW, contact sports like rugby might even have a whiff of a "last century" phenomenon about them as it is. They shouldn't be in a hurry to throw away viewers just because they're over 20 y.o.

 

[Derpus]

Why sports? Because the biggest demand for the content is for it to be high quality, reliable and—most of all—LIVE. Being live means that the personalized consumption modes can be outmatched by broadcast. The bandwidth available on Australian 7 MHz channels is large. You can send 4K (and even 8K) video quite easily and waaaay cheaper than via 5G or FTTP rollouts which will take many years and dollars.

Is that so? What are the transmission limitations for digital television services? I'm somewhat skeptical that it would be higher than fiber to the premises. I assume it's reliant on traditional metal cables (copper).

FTTP was and always will be the most future proof option. Building to the node was the worst option of not building the NBN/FTTN/FTTP. Sure it costs a lot but we are already behind the rest of the world in the provision of what is now a basic utility. The fact that streaming rugby in this country is not viable is a symptom of that.

The only streaming option i have for rugby at the moment is Foxtel GO (have an arrangement with the old man) and it looks to be about 320p or so. It's garbage but it does the job.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Is that so? What are the transmission limitations for digital television services? I'm somewhat skeptical that it would be higher than fiber to the premises. I assume it's reliant on traditional metal cables (copper).

FTTP was and always will be the most future proof option. Building to the node was the worst option of not building the NBN/FTTN/FTTP. Sure it costs a lot but we are already behind the rest of the world in the provision of what is now a basic utility. The fact that streaming rugby in this country is not viable is a symptom of that.

The only streaming option i have for rugby at the moment is Foxtel GO (have an arrangement with the old man) and it looks to be about 320p or so. It's garbage but it does the job.

The only way we could get comparable speeds to what the FTTP was to provide now is via 5G. I've used it and it's seriously quick. On average 200GB download and around 120GB upload with plenty of capacity to grow. Problem is, it's likely to be ridiculously expensive.

 

[kiap]

Is that so? What are the transmission limitations for digital television services? I'm somewhat skeptical that it would be higher than fiber to the premises. I assume it's reliant on traditional metal cables (copper).

I'll keep largely to what's been tested in Australia for digital broadcast TV. If you're in Sydney, you may be familiar with the big transmission sites at Gore Hill. Along with a couple of in-fill sites at Kings Cross and North Head, they've just finished a trial there which included 4K TV transmission last month. Coverage which will reach well over 2 million people with a few new modules plugged in. Thumbnail attached at the bottom showing (a pushed) 38 Mbits/s transmission at high power in Sydney if any tech-nerds are reading.

This sort of tech is ready now and could be rolled out here fairly quick. In Japan and Korea their 8K broadcast field testing was done 3-4 years ago (sending four times that data in the bandwidth).

In comparison to the potential of FTTP then, 30 Mbits/s or even 100Mbit/s within one of the existing channels might be considered modest. But it's broadcast. No congestion and you won't need billions upon tens of billions to roll out the network.

FTTP was and always will be the most future proof option. Building to the node was the worst option of not building the NBN/FTTN/FTTP. Sure it costs a lot but we are already behind the rest of the world in the provision of what is now a basic utility. The fact that streaming rugby in this country is not viable is a symptom of that.

I could interrogate some of those points but largely agree with the thrust.

FTTP of course is great but it can be evangalised as the answer to everything. While waiting for it to be delivered (and even afterward) the wireless spectrum will still have a role.

The only streaming option i have for rugby at the moment is Foxtel GO (have an arrangement with the old man) and it looks to be about 320p or so. It's garbage but it does the job.

True enough, I had it last year.

It works okay (am no longer a subscriber for other reasons).

 

[Derpus]

^^^^
I'm pretty sure it's physically impossible for wireless to ever reach the speeds FTTP is capable of, purely due to interference (copper has a similar issue with electro-magnetic interference). I'm definitely no expert though, so i'm not sure. 30Mbits/s is quite underwhelming to be honest.

I can't help but feel that we've hedged our bets and decided to provide a solution that meets today's demand tomorrow. Whilst we know that the demand for data grows exponentially, meaning by the time FTTN or 5G roll around they will already be redundant in a variety of ways.

Imagine trying to load even a basic website using a dial-up modem these days. Demand changes and whilst FTTN might suit our demand now it'll be fucking useless in 10 years.

I'm not convinced traditional television, even modern versions, are viable alternatives. 5G is a stop gap at best. The reality is we will be left in the dust, and that means continuing to watch Rugby on a garbage 320p feed for 80$ a month.

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest problem with wireless is it is shared bandwidth.

Whilst it can be incredibly fast (and 4G is already really fast), it's not something that is a workable solution for everyone.

We need wired connections to cover the bulk of the overall usage.

 

[kiap]

I'm pretty sure it's physically impossible for wireless to ever reach the speeds FTTP is capable of

FTTP will carry way more payload. Of course.

30Mbits/s is quite underwhelming to be honest.

Yeah, but the point is that a (compressed) 30Mbits/s is all that's required for a full 4K video feed to reach the whole city.

For sports broadcasting, that can neatly fit what they need. It doesn't require millions of houses all networked on say 40Mbit/s connections without being shaped in prime time - i.e. needing a decent minimum throughput, not just an average rate that looks good off-peak.

I can't help but feel that we've hedged our bets and decided to provide a solution that meets today's demand tomorrow. Whilst we know that the demand for data grows exponentially, meaning by the time FTTN or 5G roll around they will already be redundant in a variety of ways.

Fair enough, although, it's somewhat of a wider discussion than the topic of this thread. FTTP should still be the aim. Eventually we'll get there but physically running the fibre everywhere is where a lot of the cost is incurred. Once in, it should be good for a least 50 years, though, and probably a fair bit more. The equipment hanging off the network would need to be upgraded more frequently.

Anyway, gotta go. I'll leave it with you.

 

[kiap]

The biggest problem with wireless is it is shared bandwidth.

Whilst it can be incredibly fast (and 4G is already really fast), it's not something that is a workable solution for everyone.

We need wired connections to cover the bulk of the overall usage.

Depends whether you are talking about internet services generally, in which case of course.

Or

Broadcast options for Australian Rugby (and other sports). Different things.

 

[Strewthcobber]

How many different 4k channels could be broadcast simultaneously using that bandwidth?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

If I understand the intent of the question, not more that 5 licences per city will be the reality for Australia. That's not a technical answer; which could be 20 to 30 channels or more … it's just not likely to go that way.

In saying that, groupings of cap city licences of that kind could work for broadcasting to be in the mix. The way forward is not pre-ordained; much will come down to content.

 

[Strewthcobber]

If I understand the intent of the question, not more that 5 licences per city will be the reality for Australia. That's not a technical answer; which could be 20 to 30 channels or more … it's just not likely to go that way.

In saying that, groupings of cap city licences of that kind could work for broadcasting to be in the mix. The way forward is not pre-ordained; much will come down to content.

Cheers mate - was really wondering if the capacity or technology could be there, but be fully utilised by NRL/AFL broadcasts

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

Cheers mate - was really wondering if the capacity or technology could be there, but be fully utilised by NRL/AFL broadcasts

All good. NRL/AFL would be the sort of content they'd look to put on it IMO (and who knows? maybe some fifteen-a-side). The technology will do it. Other considerations for the broadcasters could affect what they do, though.