“Spectrum” might not be on your wavelength right now, but it should be.
Sometime between 2012 and 2015 something called the digital switchover will occur. That means that all our TVs will switch from being analogue to digital. This is a global phenomenon. It won’t happen like magic, we actually have to discard the old analogue TV and purchase a digital one.
Despite the fact that an estimated 1.1 million New Zealanders now have a digital TV, the transition to full digital switchover won’t come without bumps.
One significant bump is that there’s a lot of people out there who won’t necessarily want to switch over. Or be able to afford to. Another is making sure that rural NZ isn’t disadvantaged by not being able to access digital frequencies.
You might remember a few year’s back when we all switched from analogue mobile phones to digital ones. Now it’s TV’s turn. But it’s much bigger than TV because there’s newer technologies pushing for dominance and wider political interests at play (in this country anyway).
The “digital dividend” is the extra spectrum made available by digital television broadcasting taking over from analogue using a technically efficient band plan. In layman’s terms, that means that the switch to digital frees up a bunch of spectrum and opens up the frequency waves to more users.
Competition is building and there’s some important points to be made.
- Labour initiated the process of the digital switchover
- The Govt objectives are to convert current commercial television services to digital technology using a technically efficient band plan that are appropriate for rural as well as urban NZ; and
- Making sure that the new spectrum released allowed for new services to maximise the benefit to New Zealand. In other words mobile and broadband services, such as 4G (fourth generation mobile).
Communications Minister Steven Joyce announced yesterday the initial frequency allocation boundaries for long term use of the present UHF television bands after digital switchover (DSO).
What he didn’t tell us is a paper that went to Cabinet a couple of weeks ago on this issue has hit some snags.
1. There are tensions between the television and telcos over who should have the greatest access to spectrum and when that spectrum will be available. This raises an important issue around what our technology will look like in the future. Pressure is mounting for decisions to be made sooner rather than later as big investments are at stake.
2. There are iwi interests involved. It’s my understanding that when the consultation process involving the release of a discussion document Digital Futures: Planning for Digital Television and New Uses was concluded last month the only submission representing Maori interests came from Maori TV Services. At the last minute a letter was written to the PM and the Minister of Maori Affairs on behalf of the iwi leadership group to ensure that there were discussions at Ministerial Level about how iwi interests would be taken into account in the outcome of the frequency review.
I asked three questions of the Ministry of Economic Development in a recent Commerce Select Committee meeting and subsequently got the following “carefully worded” written answers on 9 December.
Radio Frequencies
15. Has the iwi leadership group asked for a bigger slice of radio spectrum than might have been envisaged?
Answer: MED is not aware of the Iwi Leaders Group making such a request. Various Maori interests have made submissions about the allocation of spectrum as part of the Digital Futures consultation process.
16. Has the iwi leadership group said it would take the issue to the Waitangi Tribunal if it was not resolved?
Answer: MED is not aware of any such statement.
17. Has this in any way been linked to the Maori Party’s deal on the ETS?
Answer: MED is not aware of any linkage.
I won’t comment further on this in this post as some of my colleagues are more knowledgeable and there have been subsequent developments with regard to iwi and spectrum.
The Cabinet paper, as I understand it, is on hold while the issues are “teased out”.
Lastly, and interestingly, the spectrum issue is now being led by Steven Joyce, the Communications and IT Minister, not Jonathan Coleman, the Broadcasting Minister. That should tell us something.
I’ll be watching that one with interest.
I understood that there are ‘converters’ available for taking the digital feed and creating an analogue output for the old TV. The real question is will there be funds for those who cant/ dont changeover as has happened in the US.
After all they will be selling the spectrum that is released by the changeover , wont they ?
There has also just been a last minute Waitangi Tribunal claim made with respect to this digital dividend http://bit.ly/7hh1AV.
Same issues are being grappled with in continental Europe, UK and US.
Well in regards rural areas being disadvantaged that has already happened ( under Labour )
Basic Freeview is Satellite & provides far better reception to all New Zealand, all good there.
HD Freeview is terrestial & only in the major cities, which is crazy given both Auckland & Wellington are nightmares for terrestial transmission.
Given NZ’s topography, there seems only two valid transmission techniques, Satellite & Internet, which means the analogue frequencies are likely to be used for non Television usage.
In short Labour created a scenario where rural Maori are being left out of the HD revolution in television along with the associated systems such as TIVO, not to mention rural NZ & the vast numbers of people who struggle to receive Terrestial HD in the Wellington/Auckland due to their geographical location.
It’s a great big mess & the destiny was set when Kordia were allowed to go terrestial for HD Freeeview.
Well covered Clare. The additional aspect to add to the mix is the other area you have been commenting on is ACTA and how this will impact. With the lines, roles and channels definitely blurring as to what is television, data streams, download content I can foresee a landscape emerging that probably most can not realise the intimate details of. With Sky in talks with Vodafone to deliver television to the handset, Telecom delivering Tiva broadcasts, IP Phone delivery, online television becoming a growing delivery mechanism what are the impacts and dangers emerging when the ACTA provisions might mean our basic rights of internet connectivity due to the fact large music and film commercial entities have other interest at heart. Add iwi interest, commercial interests and Government back room wheeling dealing along with global forces it would seem a digital tsunami is coming our way. I wonder how many people are really aware of the impact. Add 5 years to Social Media maturing even more so, cloud computing playing an increasing role and the landscape will be rather different.
Who will be the causalities?
I think this is an encompassing topic the ICT industry as a whole needs to start discussing in far greater levels of participation. The fragmentation that currently exists in discussions within industry and with Government do not help which was highlighted by Brett O’Reilly (NZICT – CEO) at the Research forum group meeting held last night.
The cost of entry in’t quie as high as pointed out.
There are set top boxes which plug into the componnt inputs (read: AV1) of your television – these cost anywhere from $200 although they may have more costs. At home we’re looking at the cost of an outdoor aerial which we’ve never bothered with as we can only get around 75% signal strength with an indoor aerial – so probably around another.. $100-$150 on top.
As for the iwi concerns – I’m never entirely sure what to make of these. I was disgusted by the carbon emissions deal with only certain iwi as this just reeked of self interest to me. I think what needs to be explored is “what effort does this have on the man watching the tv?”. Is the aim to have more of the spectrum to sell? Or more of it to deliver their own content? So I guess, more importantly is, what exactly are iwi likely to do wth the spectrum?
Funny to see some are concerned about rural Maori being ‘left out of digital HD Freeview’. That would be their greatest concerns they would have I imagine.
I live in a building (concrete and a radio station nearby) where I can’t get sky and therefore can’t get freeview so in a few years I’m going to be stuffed. i wonder how many others will be in the same situation.
I hear that sky tv gets rain interference when heavy rain hits the dish.
GR you get an aerial ‘ outside the building’.
You may have noticed them on houses, they were called ‘TV aerials’. In fact the same aerial for analogue will do for digital.
Cooperation among telcos should be mandated for the spectrum that is freed up for 4G/LTE. In fact, they should also be weaned off the “more towers, taller towers” model where possible.
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/netw/4F8AACBE4E8B8356CC257692006E31E1
“The cost of entry in’t quie as high as pointed out.
There are set top boxes…”
Rural people need a satellite dish. The cost of entry is quite high.
I can’t afford expensive view
Digital mobile phones? They’re a fad! Going nowhere!
Telecom wouldn’t lie to me!
Related to the switch to digital is the implementation of “Digital
Rights Management”.
That is, although it is called “Freeview”, technology may be built in
such a way that recording free to air TV may become impossible unless
you are using special recorders such as TiVo, and these recorders
encrypt the data in such a way that it cannot be moved off the box. In
other words it permits “time shifting”, but not other fair uses.
The concern here is that in a new age where video is the new media we
should have the right to “quote” video – that is use short exerts from
a video in making our own video. This might be for critique or for
political commentary. Essentially the content providers are starting
to lock down content in such a way that it forecloses on our right to
critique or quote.
An example of this may be political speeches transmitted via Freeview.
Ideally we should be able to capture them and play back segments to
prove that politicians said what they did in new media. However, with
DRM controls we will not be able to record and mix this kind of
content.
Life becomes Orwellian when the Government / Content Industry can
control the flow of information and can in effect edit it after being
published to make it look like they never said something. If you read
1984 you see the “Truth Ministry” needing to republish paper articles
to do this. In an Internet world with strong central controls people only get their information from “official” sources. We will have
arrived in a world where 1984 is possible.
In Australia we are seeing strong Internet filtering controls, and we
see that those who oppose these controls are themselves being shut
down and filtered. In other words this is a far larger issue than the
right to tape Shortland Street; it is about the right to a free
speech. If you have “free speech zones” – be that in a physical sense
or a virtual sense, then you no longer have free speech.
Regards,
Peter Harrison
“technology may be built in such a way that recording free to air TV may become impossible unless you are using special recorders such as TiVo” What?
That sucks! 
This needs to be fixed!
“might be for critique or for political commentary.” He he he there were some good ones before they banned it.
“In Australia we are seeing strong Internet filtering controls, and we see that those who oppose these controls are themselves being shut down and filtered.” That sounds scary and undemocratic.
Television like all broadcasting is asymmetric in nature, all the information flows from the broadcaster to the home. There is no need for a return channel. So satellite, with its huge bandwidth and inexpensive national coverage is the perfect medium. The terrestrial service is dead, let’s move on. The sub 1 GHz frequencies which have been wasted by broadcasters for more than 60 years need to be freed up for something far more important – Internet for the masses. The Internet is a symmetric medium and perfectly suited for participation.
Ghost who walks
I have had someone from Sky try but there was too much interference even when he tried to put one on the roof.