TV2 funding TV1 doesn't stack up

I see the party keeping Labour in government – NZ First (who voted for Pita Paraone?) – is supporting a commercial free TV 1 funded by TV2 profits – which of course, doesn’t stack up.

.

Even if TV1 ran on half the budget of ABC TV in Australia ($250 million, lets be generous and convert A$ into NZ$), there would hardly be enough money.

.

TVNZ as a whole ran a surplus of around $57 million last year. Now TVNZ without ads on TV1 would make a smaller surplus, not 50% (as TV2 generates most of the revenue) but maybe around 20% - it also depends on whether you allow TV1 to advertise TV2 programmes or not - these are not legally commercials, but highly valuable in retaining audience share.

.

So, anyone for a $40 million a year public service channel? Maori television gets $26 million a year of your taxes for programmes and to cover operating costs, AND it has advertising revenue, and it broadcasts only in the evenings, is that what TV1 is to become? The BBC World feed for overnight isn't cheap either, that would have to go.

.

Now I note Sue Kedgley supports this too, but then she’s always been a fan of forcing people to pay for things she likes and banning things she hates, as PC so wonderfully has demonstrated.
.
Compulsory pay TV should be resisted. NZ On Air should be wound up with its funding for TV programmes to cease, and TVNZ should be sold – having access and potential control over a means of disseminating information is something governments should stay far away from.

Transmission Gully still not worth it

.
yes Transit still wants to build the coastal expressway instead of Transmission Gully. (the image is the profile of Transmission Gully compared to the existing route)
.
Good.
.
There isn’t the money for Transmission Gully – it is an uneconomic project and the media have been hoodwinked by Porirua City and the shockingly poor policy advice that sits within it. Porirua City Council does not know better than Transit, Greater Wellington Regional Council and peer reviewed consultants about roading costs – it just has a blinkered agenda. It wont raise rates to pay for Transmission Gully, even though its citizens would be some of the major beneficiaries. Porirua doesn't have the money - all the road user taxes from Wellington are committed for the next ten years (including the money that goes into the Crown account) - so it would have to be money taken from other government spending/tax cuts/borrowing to build a project with an economic return of 50c for every dollar spent on it. Wellington City Council has been trying to point much of this out - and it has a more credible policy department than any other Wellington territorial authority.
.
The coastal expressway does not need building now – the median barrier along the coast does, and that has funding from Land Transport NZ (see your petrol tax sometimes is spent well). The barrier costs around $16 million, 4-laning costs around 30 times that, Transmission Gully costs around 70 times that.
.
The focus for the corridor between Mackays Crossing and Paremata should be on a bypass for Pukerua Bay and a flyover at Paekakariki, which will make access in both communities safer and quicker. Congestion at Paremata has been ameliorated by the recently opened upgrade. Transit can pursue options for four-laning along the coast after that, and when congestion gets bad enough. Notice the road hasn’t been closed for a while – because it mainly gets closed due to accidents. When the barrier is up, there will be even fewer accidents and it will rarely be closed. With four lanes it is extremely unlikely all lanes will be closed at once – hardly worth an extra $500 million at that point, when you can use that money for something else – like remaining in your pocket!
.
The argument that Transit promised Transmission Gully and residents planned on that basis has some validity – but by no means was funding ever promised – the study that preceded the current round of consultation demonstrated that Transmission Gully was over three times what previous estimates had been.
.
Besides that the other components of the Western Corridor plan are difficult to argue against, the Kapiti Western Link Road (as a 70km/h arterial please!), extension of the rail service and higher frequency services, the Petone-Grenada link road and some other improvements are all worth proceeding with.
.
The next step is to see what the conclusion of the hearings panel are, and then the final recommended corridor plan adopted by the GW regional council and Transit. By the way, a good question and answer summary is on the GW website here and the whole proposed Western Corridor plan on a pdf document here.

Fund your OWN public TV

.

Stuff reports a call by a bunch of high profile New Zealanders for a compulsory pay TV channel – sold as a public non-commercial channel. It would be compulsory pay TV because you would be forced to pay for it regardless of whether or not you watch it.
.
As such channels exist overseas, they think you should be made to pay for one here, as you are made to pay for National Radio and Concert FM
.
Of course, there is little stopping this parade of rather wealthy New Zealanders setting it up themselves, buying frequencies and running such a channel with donations. TVNZ, after all, holds frequencies for a nationwide UHF TV channel, and the Maori reserved UHF frequencies still exist (Maori Television uses a frequency owned by Sky).
.
Unfortunately I doubt the people concerned are willing to put their hands in their pockets for a non-commercial TV channel. You see, when you want something expensive, most people would rather spend their money on other things, like holidays or Sky TV.
.
Public funded TV is expensive. ABC TV in Australia costs A$526 million a year , and the BBC sucks £123 (around $300) a year from British households to fund 2 analogue and 4 digital tv channels, and half a dozen radio stations for the whole country. Of course there are about 15x the households in Britain. Around a third of New Zealand households pay around 50% more than that for dozens of channels that they presumably want.
.
The big problem is that those advocating public TV complain about a lack of decent local programmes and too much advertising. Well ask those who produce the programmes. If people who worked in the industry charged less for their services there could be more programmes. If people wanted them they would pay for them – ahhh but they cost far more than imported programmes you say. It is a bit like complaining that too many fly economy class, it would be better to have decent seats with decent food, like those people who fly business class – someone else ought to pay!
.
Ah but it is about our culture. This is the argument I heard from the local content lobbyists for years - why make the conversation about money! Whose culture? So public TV reflects culture does it? Is that why 80% of Australian TV viewing is NOT done in front of the half billion dollar compulsory pay TV channel? Is that why public TV is almost invariably rather leftwing in outlook? (though TV3 news can give them a run for their money).

.

Well if it is about culture then stop trying to put your hand into other people’s pockets and work for free or a lot less. If the culture vultures care so much about culture they wont charge what they do for their services because it will be done out of love – after all socialists often say how much they wish so much was not about money.
.
They claim most people are ready to throw their tvs out the of their windows. Who is stopping them? Do something else, listen to the radio, play your own music, read a book, talk to people, go outside!
.
Television is not a right – it is a service and it can be funded in three ways:
.
Advertising: Where you, the viewer, get a free service in exchange for businesses (and the state!) promoting products and services to you. However to keep you watching, the channel must give you shows you want to watch, so that the audience is at its greatest.
.
The people advocating public TV don’t like commercial television though. There is an undercurrent of thinking that what the great unwashed like the most is poor quality – the proletariat only like rugby, imported comedies and reality TV shows. This is not good enough for our esteemed New Zealanders who despise this as drivel. Commercial TV targets particular audiences that may be interested in particular products, so beyond that we have…
.
Subscription TV: To convince people to pay for extra channels has been quite a feat, mostly by putting sports on it. However it does mean that people get what they pay for, and the choice is growing year by year. Again the public TV lobby see this as crass “why should you have to pay for it”, as if Dame Malvina would do all her concerts for free. Well pay TV is like buying magazines, people increasingly buy the channels they want and at any time, can give it up.
.
Voluntarily funded TV: US PBS is largely this, as are the handful of non-commercial (but not commercial free) channels around the country. People donate money and the station operates. You make a decision whether public TV is something you want to support, or you would rather save up for something else. Triangle TV in Auckland is a hybrid of this and commercial broadcasting, and there are similar channels in Dunedin and Nelson.
.
None of this washes with the public TV lobby, but fortunately the government wont give them what they want. This is because Treasury looked into this some years ago and the cost is astronomical – those public TV people don’t come cheap you know!
,
So I suggest the coalition of the (willing?) raise cash, buy some frequencies and transmitters and have a go themselves. They will soon see that most New Zealanders couldn’t give a damn or are not willing to put their money where their mouths are.

.

I've found in the UK that the most challenging programmes are not on the BBC, but on Channel 4 - which is prepared to show documentaries such as "religion the root of all evil". Commercial TV can be different - the BBC wont even call terrorists terrorists as it is too scared of offending anyone!

War with Iran

.

The Oxford Research Group has released a report on the consequences of war with Iran (whether Israeli or US attack), to strike at its nuclear facilities and capability to retaliate. It estimates that it could lead to a wider war in the Middle East, kill 10,000 people and solidify backing for the current regime, and anti-American feeling in the Middle East. Iran could retaliate with suicide speedboats against oil tankers and a ground offensive would be untenable, requiring 100,000 troops.

.

The full text of the report is here. It recommends that all non-military options be pursued to respond to Iran's nuclear programme - which, of course, should be pursued first. Diplomatic and trade sanctions may have a better chance of helping the regime topple than war. However, Iraq's nuclear facilities is Osiraq were knocked out by Israel in 1986, which did not result in war - but that was simpler.
.
However.
.
Nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, population 358 000. Imagine one third killed = 129 000.
.
Maybe Iran is bluffing. Maybe Iran wont use nuclear weapons, maybe it wont supply nuclear materials to terrorists it supplies, funds and trains now. Maybe....

.

Hopefully a diplomatic solution can be found that is verifiable, and Iran can be brought back from the brink. If it can't and Iran uses what it looks like it is acquiring, then it will be too late.

.

Iran needs to be threatened with economic sanctions and isolation if it continues, and an opening up if it opens it facilities for full inspection and verification. Its government and people should know that there is a willingness to strangle Iran economically if it persists, and to use military force if necessary. As long as Iran has murderous intent against Israel, Israel will not sit by and watch hundreds of thousands of its civilians be incinerated.

.

After all, if Iran uses a nuclear weapon against Israel - there should be no doubt that the Israeli and US response will make that the end of the Islamic Republic.

Bottled water and waste

Now the Greens have this as their latest guilt trip for consumers. Lindsay Mitchell agrees with them in part (and is probably slightly concerned about that).
..
People spending their own money to buy something they want – bottled water. This is despite the quality of tap water getting better and despite many people not knowing the taste difference.
.
A lot of that may be true. It may also be true that people are drinking more water, because of the health benefits, and that more people in air conditioned environments are feeling dehydrated. People buy bottled water for when they exercise, and travelling on planes and trains. Some (like me) buy bottled water because the tap water is foul (though I am in London) and I am prepared to pay for water that I prefer.
.
The main whine appears to be that people are wasting money – like they “waste” money buying petrol when they could be travelling by other means. It sounds just as paternalistic and school prefect like as the Christians are on sex. It may cost 10,000 times more to bottle water than reticulate it, but if people are willing to pay for it, it is no different than buying too many pairs of shoes – nobody else’s business!
.
However, a more substantive concern is “what about the plastic bottles”. Now there may be arguments that if people are replacing drinking other bottled drinks like soft drinks, then there is no net impact at all. Some bottles are recycled too. Regardless of that, there is a legitimate question.
.
Is the world going to be swamped with all these bottles using up land and making our cities and landscapes ridden with garbage?
.
No.
.
“Our landfills are creaking” gives as image of mountains of rubbish about to spill over. There is plenty of land for landfills – think of where the main Wellington city one is in Happy Valley – vast acres of valleys and land to the west and south of it where landfills could exist with nobody being affected. It is more a matter of whether it makes economic sense. Bjorn Lomborg claims that the entire waste of the US for the 21st century, assuming the population doubles, would take up an area roughly 28 miles square and 100 feet high. Not exactly overflowing is it when the USA covers 3537441 square miles. It is no reason to not reduce waste, but one problem is the incentives.

.

Local government typically runs landfills and does not always operate them to make a profit, like an investment. If it did, the cost of using them would go up, increasing pressure for waste reduction and improving the economics of recycling. Ah, but people will tip rubbish in public areas you say. The tragedy of the commons - and something that tends to only occur on public land. Time to sell that land too, but in the meantime this is where law enforcement and councils could focus their efforts - sell the landfills and enforce laws against tipping. Littering is something that environmentalists spend far too little time being concerned about.