Monday, November 21, 2016

DVB-T and Chill - From Mass-Media to Class-Media?



DVB-T2 arrives in Germany and there’s no way to stop it. But what does the new technology means for the consumers? A long overdue increase of quality or a rip-off in disguise? 


Ready for the electronical waste: German DVB-T receivers 

 
Maybe a lot of Germans didn’t even notice but they are in a “cost-free-phase” since the 31. May 2016. Those are good news, aren’t they? But what exactly is cost-free since then? Well the private TV-channels of cause! You are not impressed now because the private channels like “RTL”, “Sat-1” or “ProSieben” were cost-free all the time due to the fact that they finance themselves by commercial breaks? In this case the private channels throw a loud “But not much longer!” directly in your face. The new TV-reception-system DVB-T2 arrives and brings fee-based private channels with it. But let’s take one thing at a time.
A few years ago the main TV-reception-system switched from television antenna to DVB-T ("Digital Video Broadcasting - Terrestrial"). Most of the Germans will remember the informative TV-spots which warned us that soon we won’t be able to pick up a TV-signal via antenna anymore and that we have to change the set-up. So the consumers did as they were told and bought DVB-T receivers. But the new reception-technology was not a real treat: It offered only a few channels compared to reception via satellite or via cable and the quality was often affected by statics. My opinion as a year-long user of DVB-T: So what? I was able to watch TV! That’s what matters! To say it with Batman from the “Dark-Knight”-Movie: “It wasn’t the reception system we deserve but the one we need.”

But now DVB-T2 is coming. Well actually it is here already since the 31. May 2016 but it will supersede DVB-T completely at the 29. March 2017. That means you can already plan to bring your DVB-T receiver to the electrical waste. Yep, that’s true! The new technology makes the old receivers useless. But why is new technology necessary anyway? Apart from the fact that the government tries to clear frequencies for providers of mobile-communication, all television broadcasts improve to High-Definition-Quality. Even to better HD-quality than current HD satellite- or cable-channels. Furthermore there will be a range of up to 50 channels. So no more need for me to be envious of my friends with satellite or cable who tell me proudly about “Eurosport”, “Disney-Channel” or “Comedy Central”. So far, so good.
Everything would be alright when we just would have to buy a new receiver – we are used to it anyway.

Onetime acquisition costs for 50 channels in HD-quality. I think the most of us would gladly agree to that. However the problem is that the costs don’t stop at this point. As mentioned above, the private channels don’t upgrade their technology for charity’s sake but demand a fee of five Euros per month. That doesn’t seem to be much but if you compare it to streaming providers like Netflix which demand a fee of eight Euros per month it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. You are forced to pay nearly the costs of a streaming-provider for usual television without the benefits of streaming. You can’t choose what you want to see, you have to deal with long commercial breaks…Exactly the things you try to avoid by paying for a streaming provider. 
At least the public channels stay cost-free further on. Or, to say it better, the costs are still included in the obligatory radio-and-TV-license-fees. So even if you don’t pay for the private channels your TV-screen won’t stay black.

But where does this decision leads to? As we all know, the predicted extinction of the old mass media including the television by the internet never happened. Instead you can observe that old and new media tends to form a peaceful co-existence. It is the device that changes not the content. We still have radio broadcast, even if some of the functions have changed, we still have theatres, cinemas and of cause we will still have the television in Germany when the device changes from a DVB-T to a DVB-T2 receiver. But nonetheless the demanding of fees for an old mass media like the television seems like a risky approach for me. I think one of the reasons that streaming-providers don’t endanger the television is that you can receive television programs nearly cost-free. But if I look at my own development I’m not sure if the TV stays stable when it becomes completely fee-based. I have barely watched TV in the last year. Instead I watched online-streams, Youtube-Videos, streaming-providers like Netflix or DVDs with friends. The program of most of the TV-channels is not my cup of tea anymore so I don’t watch it but own a TV nevertheless. But when Pay-TV will become obligatory I see no more reason for me to watch TV at all. Why should I pay for the usual old fashioned TV (apart from the HD-quality) when I nearly pay the same for a streaming-provider (in HD-quality as well)? 
I’m sure that there will be a lot of people who will pay for the new private channels but I can not exclude the possibility that this could lead to a gap between internet and TV audiences. The first possibility could be that only people who earn enough money will pay for the new private channels. But I don’t think that this is realistic because the standard of the majority of the private channels seems to get lower and lower every year. For that reason people with a high social position could lose the interest in it completely unless the private channels change. The other possibility could be that lowly sophisticated people are more likely to pay the fee even if it’s difficult for them because they don’t want to lose their reality-soap and Superstar-programs. In this case the private channels could stay the same but there would be a growing gap between a sophisticated internet-society that chooses the information it is interested in (apart from problems like the “Filter Bubble”) and a low level TV-society that is exposed to a content stream of information the mass media wants it to see.
That would be co-existence of the old and the new media as well and maybe the television or the streaming providers will change their functions due to this development. From a media-studies point of view that wouldn’t be surprising but could lead us to new social problems and new forms of informational division.

It remains to be seen if the private providers shoot themselves in the foot by banking on the willingness of the consumers to pay a monthly fee just to watch programs like “Germany’s Next Top Model” or “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!”. But that’s another matter.

                                                                                                                                                                 (Thorben W. Lucht)


1 comment: