Well I for one am really looking forward to a broader public broadcasting platform. And if the promises of in-depth coverage and analysis of current events actually come through it'll be a great thing.

The major issue I have with TV presently is the quality of so much of it - there are some gems out there (foreign and domestic) that are hidden a repeat of agenda at a more hospitable hour would be good, for example. Ideally for me, expanded public television would enable more quality foreign programming into the market, as well as addition local stuff.

I think the government has a conflicting interests here, a desire for public television, it's own Television station and for good measure NZ Onair & Maori TV.
That's too many pieces in the puzzle if you ask me, I'd prefer.
NZ Onair & Maori TV stay.
TVNZ sold off.
The two new channel's if it's what the goverment wants are funded through NZ Onair & the content is provided via a bidding/tender process & indeed for News I would argue that could be split amoungst multiple providers.
From a technical perspective, I think Freeview is great & what I really like is it opens up the opportunity for far better FTA sports coverage to compete with Sky, for instance F1 could be main race on FTA with Practise/Analysis etc on Digital. Cricket with 2 channels one FTA & one digital version with 1/3 of the screen dedicated to stats, alot of opportunity.

Three major points:

1. Production and Transmission need to be structurally separated and certainly can be with the developments that YouTube and StreamingNet taking care of the distribution. I suspect the output of Maori TV would be far more widely viewed if it weren't tied to the legacy broadcast transmission model. Consequently FreeView is a perpetuation of the limited channel, industry serving model rather than opening up the channels to a wider range of suppliers and is a waste of money and spectrum.

2. If the content we pay to have produced were completely free of encumbrance, and why not, all methods of distribution would be available and used, leading to a far greater return. And if we could avoid the BBC's parochial model by not paying for the distribution, all the better.

3. Has anyone re-examined the nature of "public" broadcasting since the scarcity of channels and cost of production plummeted? I think now we could consider broadcasting the public (with some distributed approval model) rather than broadcasting to the public that which a small segment decides we want to see based on pseudo-commercial incentives (AKA viewers or listeners).

Nigel:

the content is provided via a bidding/tender process

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

The major issue I have with TV presently is the quality of so much of it - there are some gems out there (foreign and domestic) that are hidden a repeat of agenda at a more hospitable hour would be good, for example.

That's one thing you will absolutely get out of this. Ditto for charter-friendly programming like 'The Market', which deserved a much better slot than it got, but wasn't as a good a sell to advertisers as something more mainstream was.

Yep, we can probably expect to see Agenda, Frontseat, Marae, Waka Huia, and the rest of the ghetto charter fare at much more respectable times. I pray that we will get to see some real quality foreign current affairs, like Four Corners, Frontline and Foreign Correspondent. I would be very surprised if the money will be spent on new quality NZ current affairs. That sort of stuff is very expensive to make, and I can't see TVNZ spending big money on programmes that will only be broadcast on the digital platform. The likes of Assignment will probably never be made in NZ again.

FTA sport will again be a problem for TVNZ. Sky has virtually sown up all popular sport as subscriber viewing, and now has an outlet for FTA repeats on Prime. We might get the odd magazine show, or panel discussion, because they are cheap to make. Outside broadcasts, on the other hand, are expensive to produce. TVNZ have pretty much lost all of their sports content. It cannot afford to buy it back.

As far as I can see, most of the money will go towards staffing and cheap studio presentations. TVNZ will need to employ a number of producers to feed the news beast during the day, because they will be reluctant to pull their resources from the 6.00 bulletin on terrestrial. The new news channel will have the advantage of having a proper bulletin again later in the night (8.30?), catering to the increasing number of people who work later. The quality of the news will probably be no better, but there will be more of it. I suspect Sky News Australia will be the model - constant headline updates, a lot of weather, and plenty of sports news - all from the studio.

My fear is that TVNZ again is moving behind the times. Sky has moved a long way ahead in terms of content and interactivity. TVNZ has yet to even start broadcasting in 16:9 ( or even 14:9). This feels like an attempt catch up, but what they will find when they finally get on air, is that the competition has moved on again, and are offering limited HD programming.

PS - Russell, I gotta say there was a very good reason "The Market" was on so late, and that was because it was absolutley awful.

Some random thoughts:

Do people still watch TV?

Agree that production and distribution need to be separate. Ever since the advent of the programmable VCR, DVD'S, Tevo, MySky and now YouTube, we are moving more and more to on-demand TV watching. Tying production and distribution together limits the audience.

Why aren't educational institutions broadcasting on TV yet? Wouldn't the knowledge economy be better advanced if tertiary and training institutions broadcast their lectures, instead of building auditoriums?

Will we finally get the news at 8:00pm on the digital service? Never understood why both channels show the news is at 6, especially in summer.

My fear is that TVNZ again is moving behind the times. Sky has moved a long way ahead in terms of content and interactivity. TVNZ has yet to even start broadcasting in 16:9 ( or even 14:9). This feels like an attempt catch up, but what they will find when they finally get on air, is that the competition has moved on again, and are offering limited HD programming.

They're certainly catching up, but they have the advantage of starting with newer technology, where Sky still has a lot of legacy boxes out there. There are still plenty of Sky decoders that don't handle widescreen.

The thing to watch for on Sky will be boxes with some basic IP functionality - ie, the ability to download certain goodies via a broadband connection. It'll still be very walled-garden though.

Where Sky has stolen something of a march is on Documentary Channel content - there's a minimum of 200 hours of factual content already sewn up there.

Which reminds me: I must tell The Doctor to write another Doco Channel blog ...

Ask The Doctor if he really believes the current Documentary Channel offerings are up to scratch.Maybe I'm not getting it, but with at least 4 full time channels screening docos, plus the Beeb and Rialto screening at least one or two a week, I have not seen any added value to a genre I am very focused on. Are they commissioning more local content? What gives?

As for TVNZ, I gave up years ago, and it will take a complete turn around in culture and business model for them to change my attitude and/or patronage.I don't think government should be directly involved in television. Having said that, I hope they can make it work, and increase the quality and diversity of content. Would be a win-win for the industry.

Do people still watch TV?

I think Cameron Pitches' point is well-taken. I certainly don't watch much. But, of more significance perhaps, my 18-year-old nephew in Toronto (where broadband is really broadband) just gave away his TV set. He gets all the video he wants on his 24" computer monitor. One day that's going to happen here in NZ.

Also, Rick Ellis (TVNZ CEO) says 70 per cent of the programming on the new digital channels will be rebroadcast from TV One and TV 2. So why do we need the new channels? Apparently to time-shift those programmes into more accessible slots. Instead of creating new channels, maybe we just need to learn how to programme our VCRs or DVD recorders.

TVNZ can (and occasionally do) transmit in 16:9. The Insider's Guide to... series were transmitted in this ratio. Most programmes are transmitted in 14:9.

The irony is that most programmes are made in 16:9 these days (even, believe it or not, Shortland Street). However in this country the broadcaster chooses to transmit a compromised picture.

Something to do with not wanting to frighten the viewers who suddenly see black lines at the top and bottom of their 4:3 sets.

Hadyn,

"The content is provided via a bidding/tender process"
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

For news I would have tendered for the prime 18 hours + updates a day ( 3-4 year deal ), open to any NZ based company ( Canwest/TVNZ/Sky/Telecom/Vodafone being the likely candidates ), allowing say 10 minutes of ads/promos an hour & for the other 6 hours opened that up as well, maybe it would not work, but it would be interesting to have C4 news as a 20 minute block, then news update, then Maori news, news update, then Southland TV, news update ..., it would require a protocol to handle major breaking news & content ( ie it has to be news ! ), but it would also open up some fascinating opportunities for the likes of the Tourism Board, Farming, Overseas news providers/Educational Providers to produce/fund weekly segments.
In the end I don't think a new publicly funded channel should by default go to TVNZ, as NZ Onair does not give Doco/Programming funding by default to TVNZ, also I think the model of a single provider is wrong in a world where the content creation tools are so ubiquitous & the differences between TV content vs Web content starting to blur more rapidly now.

Cheers Nigel.

I am really hoping that the new channels will mean more local content. Personally I think a 24hr news channel will be naff, doesn't the internet do that whole 24hr news bit so much better than anything else?

But the opportunity for good shows to be replayed at decent times (i.e. times that don't disrupt my beauty sleep) makes the whole thing worth it.

But more new stuff will be the best! Especially more local comedy, currently we've got...Bro'Town and...(tumbleweeds)

More local content .. yeah right. A dedicated news channel ... yeah right.

Remind me again what are the two most costly elements of TV production? Local programming and news maybe?

I'll be very surprised if the news channel is no more than a continual repeat of news stories, hefty great chunks of raw press conference footage, and journo's doing lengthy Q and A's with anchors.

I remember when Ralston first got the top job there was a talk of a return to regional news. This got the chop for the simple reason they didn't think they had the staff to do it. Now tell me if they can't make a fist of regional news how in hell will they make a go of a dedicated news channel?

And whatever did happen to TVNZ's investigative unit anyway?

Just my cynical 2 cents.

"TVNZ can (and occasionally do) transmit in 16:9"

Getting a bit off-topic - strictly speaking the only material reaching people's homes in true 16:9 is the Rugby Channel and one or two SKY Movie channels.

Yes, shows are produced 16:9, but then transmitted letterboxed. This is not true 16:9.

Why TVNZ choose to show "Insiders ..." letterboxed but not The Sopranos, which goes out 4:3 fullscreen is a mystery.

On-topic:
Obfuscating the debate about Freeview is this "digital" thing. Who cares if it's digital? Can I receive it, what does it cost and are the programmes any good are the questions. The only reason I get the digital/analogue hybrid service that TelstraClear cable into my house is that analogue reception in my area is so poor.

In fact "digital" is ruining pictures. Just look at E! Entertainment.

Oh, wait ...

Although it's meant for US audiences being bamboozled by retailers in the run-up to the February 17, 2009, deadline for analog broadcasts to end, the PDF booklet A Consumer's Guide to the Wonderful World of HDTV at Antenna Web might be of some general interest to y'all.