|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you very much.
I can't help but totally endorse what Prof. Krivocheev and Mr. Om Khushu said. I think they'd covered all the major points and very well indeed.
It's plain obvious that show such as IBC 2000 very adequately demonstrates the masses of equipment available. The huge variety of equipment in all areas of broadcasting environment: acquisition equipment both for OB van and studio, production equipment, both for traditional production and based on new approaches: the IT-based equipment, computer-based broadcasting equipment. There are systems for post processing, nonlinear editing systems, server-based manipulation of signals, systems for primary and second distribution. We have different modulation schemes and ways of packaging and multiplexing/demultiplexing signals. It's all very confusing. In fact, broadcast industry is itself a very confusing industry. You have huge broadcasters, they are well know - enormous national broadcasters no matter where they are in the world. I represent Europe and thus major European broadcasters. But at the same time you may have a very small broadcaster in a facility house doing the same business, but at totally different scale and having different economic and operational needs. Terribly confusing. Now, IBC is huge, it's grown, it's matured, in one sense - it is too big. It is, it's to big to concentrate on something. Your senses are overloaded, and it is not the place to make reasoned economic choices, reasoned operational choices. It makes you confused. So, really, any enterprise, which simplifies the masses of choice available, both economic and operational, such as ERA's, web-based, which allows one to make a decision working on a computer in office headquarters and discussing it with colleagues is preferable.
|