Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[Who_tat_me]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4247ac51.27076437@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:04:04 +1000, "Phil Allison"
philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

The same STB will supply hi-fi sound to your stereo, a DVD quality pic to
any AV equipped TV set, eliminate ghosts, eliminate noise, provide extra
channels and work perfectly from a second rate antenna or in a poor or
fringe location.

A DVD quality picture is only slightly better than a PAL one

Analogue, not PAL.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:6AQ1e.15491$C7.12241@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message

In order to force people to adopt digital, because they won't do so by
their free will, the digtial legislation calls for the analogue
signals are to be switched off in 2008. Rendering TVs, VCRs, Tuner
cards etc. useless.

It's only 2008 in some areas. Analogue will be around until at least 2014
and probably longer in some areas.

2008 is the target date for metro areas but it won't happen unless a
majority of people have made the switch. That would seem pretty unlikely
unless people are given a decent incentive to make the switch. For me, once
I had a widescreen TV that was enough reason... but for the majority they
can't see any point. If you've put up with average reception for years and
couldn't be bothered spending $100 to improve it then why would you now?

 

[Jacques Guy]

Who_tat_me wrote:

Analogue phones were a different kettle of fish. I got my first mobile phone
in mid 1997. I tried to get a digital phone but there were none available.

Same story here.

That was definitely a waste.

$520 down the drain in my case. Ten bottles of very good
whisky :-(

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:4sQ1e.15468$C7.1670@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

That's Victoria. Who cares about Victoria?

Victorians?

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112002617.278287.124250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
Easily explained. We've been having a discussion about the
benefits of
digital. His arguments have been shot down so now he's grabbing
for
anything that he thinks might help him, even if it's totally
off-topic
and
irrelevant to the conversation. He's at the "Shit! Now I'll have
to try
discrediting the other poster" stage.

Every single one of my arguments has been based on genuine benfits

Genuine perceived benefits. That's not the same as "actual"

When will you ever get it?

What Digital has done for me (and many others I know):
I now get a perfect and much clearer picture on every channel, where I
didn't before. An ACTUAL REAL benefit for me and many others.
I can now pick up channels I could not pick up before, an ACTUAL REAL
benefit for me and many others.
I now get widescreen which I didn't before, an ACTUAL REAL benefit for
me and many others.
I now get online program guide where I didn't before, an ACTUAL REAL
benefit for me and many others.
I now get any additional channels or views available, an ACTUAL REAL
benefit for me and many others.
I now get improved sound, an ACTUAL REAL benefit for me and many
others.

All for the princely sum of $130 or so, others have even paid much
less.

These befits can be had by MANY others, but obviously not everyone. I
have never claimed everyone can get these benefits. Some people may not
even want them and are perfectly happy with what they have now. I have
never claimed otherwise.

Of course you wouldn't really know, you don't even own an STB.

digital TV has for SOME people. Show me one of my arguments which
has
been "shot down".

The claim that digital TV will benefit ANYONE with poor eyesight is
the most
glaring example. Even you have now revised that claim to just "some".

I could have worded my first post on that a bit better I guess, I MEANT
it helped the people I know, I was not implying it could help EVERYONE.

Of course if that is your only example of my arguments being "shot
down" then I think I've done fairly well. You obviously can't refute
any of the technical benfits of digital TV.

Digital has some very big benefits for a LOT of people for very
little
outlay in many cases, while others may find little or no benefit.

You've changed your tune.

Not one bit.

You are the one who has been "shot down" I'm afraid.

Still claiming that you need a "good" and "expensive" STB to get the
above benfits are you?

This thread is now so tired it's not funny.

Regards
Dave

 

[John Smith]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4247bc32$0$12159$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Uay1e.14161$C7.12350@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Telecommunications,

How have they given that away?

The second half will be shortly.

That's not an answer to my question. Telecommunications is still
under the
control of the government. http://www.aca.gov.au

electricity, gas, water,

Or those?

They gave them away in Melbourne under Kennett.

That's Victoria. Who cares about Victoria?

Eddie Maguire

 

[Ian Galbraith]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:32:09 +0930, Chasing Kate
<sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote:

Who_tat_me wrote:

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:42464F8C.59FAE8A1@internode.on.net...

[snip]

Again I meant: Why not let private industry and an independent
body to handle and run things like digital TV and who gets what
and how the frequencies are divided up.....

Because there would be anarchy.

Anarchy??? Such as?

<sigh> Why do you bother? Here's a thought why not try some research
as to what's gone on in similar situations before displaying your
ignorance for all to see and essentially trolling the newsgroup.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112006739.765866.225710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112002617.278287.124250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
Easily explained. We've been having a discussion about the
benefits of
digital. His arguments have been shot down so now he's grabbing
for
anything that he thinks might help him, even if it's totally
off-topic
and
irrelevant to the conversation. He's at the "Shit! Now I'll have
to try
discrediting the other poster" stage.

Every single one of my arguments has been based on genuine benfits

Genuine perceived benefits. That's not the same as "actual"

When will you ever get it?

What Digital has done for me (and many others I know):
I now get a perfect and much clearer picture on every channel, where I
didn't before. An ACTUAL REAL benefit for me and many others.

But not for many others who already get a good TV signal. Therefore it's not
an actual benefit for them.

I can now pick up channels I could not pick up before, an ACTUAL REAL
benefit for me and many others.

I think that's a preceived benefit. Maybe you should stay off the wacky
weed. I'm sure the only channels you get are channels that have always been
there.

I now get widescreen which I didn't before, an ACTUAL REAL benefit for
me and many others.

Most people don't like widescreen because it looks like crap on their 53, 48
and 34cm TVs.

I now get online program guide where I didn't before, an ACTUAL REAL
benefit for me and many others.

Now you have a remote in each hand instead of a remote in one hand and a TV
guide in the other. MOST people prefer paper guides. That's why ebooks have
never taken off and why Foxtel had to give its Foxtel Digital viewers a
magazine after they got upset.

I now get any additional channels or views available, an ACTUAL REAL
benefit for me and many others.

Most people just want to see the channels that are already there.

I now get improved sound, an ACTUAL REAL benefit for me and many
others.

I already get good sound, but that's because I have a good TV. Of course
most people are happy with any sound.

All for the princely sum of $130 or so, others have even paid much
less.

Others have paid even less and they're quite happy.

Of course you wouldn't really know, you don't even own an STB.

YAWN. I have used them though and I've set quite a few up.

digital TV has for SOME people. Show me one of my arguments which
has
been "shot down".

The claim that digital TV will benefit ANYONE with poor eyesight is
the most
glaring example. Even you have now revised that claim to just "some".

I could have worded my first post on that a bit better I guess, I MEANT
it helped the people I know, I was not implying it could help EVERYONE.

Your post certainly implied that.

Of course if that is your only example of my arguments being "shot
down" then I think I've done fairly well.

It's the only one I provided because you only asked for one. There are more
but I'm not out to discredit you.

You've changed your tune.

Not one bit.

"Even if you have a perfect picture on all or some channels, the digital
picture is so much clearer, so there is a benefit there alone, just ask
anyone with eyesight problems who have trouble seeing a normal analog
screen."

You've changed from "anyone' to "some" That's just one example and more than
enough to show that "Not one bit" is not true.

You are the one who has been "shot down" I'm afraid.

I haven't been shot down at all. Not once.

Still claiming that you need a "good" and "expensive" STB to get the
above benfits are you?

I've never claimed that. My claim was "but the cheaper the STU, the fewer
features that it will have. That's fairly true of anything."
That's still true.

This thread is now so tired it's not funny.

Translated: "I can't take this any more. I want to go home."

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4247de17$0$3755$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:4sQ1e.15468$C7.1670@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That's Victoria. Who cares about Victoria?

Victorians?

I meant who of any importance.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Jacques Guy" <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:4247dbe0$1@news.alphalink.com.au...

Who_tat_me wrote:

Analogue phones were a different kettle of fish. I got my first mobile
phone in mid 1997. I tried to get a digital phone but there were none
available.

Same story here.

That was definitely a waste.

$520 down the drain in my case. Ten bottles of very good
whisky :-(

Eek! I got a standard Motorola phone on a $10 per month plan. I can't

remember what the phone cost but I know it wasn't much, if anything at all.

 

[Bazil]

John Smith wrote:

They gave them away in Melbourne under Kennett.

That's Victoria. Who cares about Victoria?


Eddie Maguire

Who cares about Eddie Maguire?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" = yet another utterly obnoxious Septic Tank idiot

** Piss off - you sickening, obnoxious WANKER !!!

PISS OFF !!!!

............ Phil

Its really sad. I've heard so much about the legendary Australian
trolls. Is this the best you can do? Are you back on you meds or
something?

If you keep up this substandard trolling you will receive a written
warning which may result in the loss of your tolling learners permit.


--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Roy Wilke]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Its really sad. I've heard so much about the legendary Australian
trolls. Is this the best you can do? Are you back on you meds or
something?

If you keep up this substandard trolling you will receive a written
warning which may result in the loss of your tolling learners permit.

Toll me more...

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112006739.765866.225710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112002617.278287.124250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
Easily explained. We've been having a discussion about the
benefits of
digital. His arguments have been shot down so now he's grabbing
for
anything that he thinks might help him, even if it's totally
off-topic
and
irrelevant to the conversation. He's at the "Shit! Now I'll
have
to try
discrediting the other poster" stage.

Every single one of my arguments has been based on genuine
benfits

Genuine perceived benefits. That's not the same as "actual"

When will you ever get it?

What Digital has done for me (and many others I know):
I now get a perfect and much clearer picture on every channel,
where I
didn't before. An ACTUAL REAL benefit for me and many others.

But not for many others who already get a good TV signal. Therefore
it's not
an actual benefit for them.

I can now pick up channels I could not pick up before, an ACTUAL
REAL
benefit for me and many others.

I think that's a preceived benefit. Maybe you should stay off the
wacky
weed. I'm sure the only channels you get are channels that have
always been
there.

Wrong as always.
How many times do I have to tell you. I now get channels I could NOT
pick up before with the same antenna. SBS was an UNWATCHABLE snow
storm, ABC changed with the phase of the moon and the fairies, and
7/9/10 had occasional snow but were otherwise pretty good.
I now get a PERFECT DVD quality picture on every channel by simply
plugging in my STB.

You are the one who should stay off the wacky weed if you think you
think you know what I get on MY system.

I now get widescreen which I didn't before, an ACTUAL REAL benefit
for
me and many others.

Most people don't like widescreen because it looks like crap on their
53, 48
and 34cm TVs.

*YAWN*

I have widescreen TV. Others with widescreen TV will get the same
benfit, those without a widescreen TV (like you) won't get the same
benefit.
BTW, I know many people who LIKE having widescreen on their 4:3 TV,
they LIKE the extra image information even if they have a small image
size.

I now get online program guide where I didn't before, an ACTUAL
REAL
benefit for me and many others.

Now you have a remote in each hand instead of a remote in one hand
and a TV
guide in the other. MOST people prefer paper guides. That's why
ebooks have
never taken off and why Foxtel had to give its Foxtel Digital viewers
a
magazine after they got upset.

I prefer the paper guide too, but the on screen guide is an extra
benefit for those those who want it. It's free. You can choose to
either use it or not. The
As I said before, I only have ONE remote, not TWO.

All of your arguments are based around finding people and situations
where digital TV is of no benefit while ignoring the huge benefits it
can and does offer others. There are two sides to this coin you know.

I do hope you find the cheap STB in Woolies are you are lusting after
so you can give digital a go, and I'm looking forward to seeing your
continued contributions to aus.tv.digital soon.

Regards
Dave

 

[John de Stigter]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:7781e.12470$C7.5380@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"John de Stigter" <johnd@sydpcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:bv71e.4379$Le2.27996@nasal.pacific.net.au...

Phil is quite right, you can pick up a perfectly good stb for $100.

Are they easy to get and widely available all the time?

Check out the links David Jones gave elsewhere in this thread.
Also, between all the major retailers, something suitable is constantly on
special.

Regards,
John.

 

[John de Stigter]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:424634E0.8C13915A@internode.on.net...

Matt2 - Amstereo wrote:

plasma can never look good., poor resolution poor colour depth and poor
shade rendering.


Yet plasma is heavily promoted despite this shortcoming

Hmmm, and why do you $$$think$$$ it's being heavily promoted despite this
shortcoming?

Regards,
John

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:53:31 +1000, "Chopper"
<Chopperbplayne@skeylink.net> wrote:

Hi Ross

Do you notice any difference between Ch9's coverage & that of Ch10's?
I find even on analogue, 9 doesn't seem as good as 10?

I haven't specifically checked the difference but will do so next
weekend.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Michael A. Terrell" = yet another utterly obnoxious Septic Tank idiot



** Piss off - you sickening, obnoxious WANKER !!!

PISS OFF !!!!




............. Phil

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:F5T1e.15743$C7.14231@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

That's Victoria. Who cares about Victoria?

Victorians?

I meant who of any importance.

Victorians.

MrT.

 

[Chasing Kate]

Hey here's an idea

Why don't the government give a tax break for the
purchase of either a new widescreen TV or a full
digital set up near the date when the systems are
to switch over???

Or some other kind of incentive like free STB