Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4248CD2C.583DA8D9@internode.on.net...

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

They have done that in Germany and, I think, some place in Scotland where
they trialled the first total digital cutovers. It was free or heavily
subsidised STBs, IIRC.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112046235.239841.19560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
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 like watching widescreen too but that doesn't negate the fact that most
people hate it.

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.

So you still have two items. You're lucky only to need one. I have a decent
TV that has functions on it that require the use of the TV remote like the
mosaic function that scans all video inputs and channels via the inbuilt
tuner and displays the results as a series of 16 images on the screen. That
lets me see what is on each channel without surfing. Digital severely limits
that.

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.

No They aren't. I'm simply demonstrating why digital isn't the wonderful
benfit to everyone that some make it out to be.

There are two sides to this coin you know.

I never said there wasn't but one side of the coin has about 750,000 people
on it while the other has 4.5 million

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4248cea6$0$5597$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"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.

*note to self. Mr.T is more insane than Herc*

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
newsA42e.16205$C7.7515@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

I never said there wasn't but one side of the coin has about 750,000
people on it while the other has 4.5 million

It's quite clear from this thread that better picture/sound/widescreen/HD
alone aren't sufficient carrots to joe public.

IMO the majority would be much more likely to take on digital if there was
even one more commercial channel on offer - either through allowing a fourth
digital-only network, or by allowing multichannelling on the existing
channels.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42483EE9.6334B118@earthlink.net...

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?

Apparently it was enough to get you to reply, which is the aim of a troll.
Personally I don't see Phil as a troll. An idiot? Most definitely, but not a
troll.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4248d884$0$22676$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
newsA42e.16205$C7.7515@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

I never said there wasn't but one side of the coin has about 750,000
people on it while the other has 4.5 million

It's quite clear from this thread that better picture/sound/widescreen/HD
alone aren't sufficient carrots to joe public.

IMO the majority would be much more likely to take on digital if there was
even one more commercial channel on offer - either through allowing a
fourth digital-only network, or by allowing multichannelling on the
existing channels.

I agree.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Who_tat_me wrote:

Apparently it was enough to get you to reply, which is the aim of a troll.
Personally I don't see Phil as a troll. An idiot? Most definitely, but not a
troll.

Its ok, I'm bored with his juvenile attempts anyway. I've seen
little kids do a better job at cursing anyway. I was tired of a moron
on R.A.R+P who changes hi identity every couple days to get attention
and evade everyone's kill filters.

I don't know what's going on with aus.electronics tonight, but only a
couple message headers for this group work tonight. The rest don't
change when you click on them. I guess the headers made it, but the
bodies didn't. Take care and have some fun in electronics.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112046235.239841.19560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
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 like watching widescreen too but that doesn't negate the fact that
most
people hate it.

You know "most" people who watch TV do you?
You must be a popular guy!

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.

So you still have two items. You're lucky only to need one.
I have a decent
TV that has functions on it that require the use of the TV remote
like the
mosaic function that scans all video inputs and channels via the
inbuilt
tuner and displays the results as a series of 16 images on the
screen. That
lets me see what is on each channel without surfing. Digital severely
limits
that.

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.

No They aren't. I'm simply demonstrating why digital isn't the
wonderful
benfit to everyone that some make it out to be.

There are two sides to this coin you know.

I never said there wasn't but one side of the coin has about 750,000
people
on it while the other has 4.5 million

Wow, that many!
750,000 is a surprisingly high number for an emerging technology.
Digital must really have some great benefits for those people hey?

What do you think, the 4.5M other people have all weighed up the pros
and cons of digital TV and decided that it's not worth it?
Probably half of them wouldn't have a clue what digital TV is.

Quoting those numbers is meaningless, it's not as simple as that.

Dave

 

[Phil Allison]

"Who_tat_me"


** Morons come to the above brain dead troll for post graduate lessons.




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

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112074064.725740.303650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:

I like watching widescreen too but that doesn't negate the fact that
most people hate it.

You know "most" people who watch TV do you?
You must be a popular guy!

I realise you're a bit slow but this is a generally accepted view. There has
been a lot of feedback from people to video stores, TV retailers, Pay TV
companies etc over the years to support this. Maybe you should do a little
bit of research.

I never said there wasn't but one side of the coin has about 750,000
people on it while the other has 4.5 million

Wow, that many!
750,000 is a surprisingly high number for an emerging technology.

Not really. I'm not even sure that figure is accurate. Figures that I've
seen show takeup of only about 275,000 but I think the 750,000 came from a
government source. Regardless, stations have been broadcasting digital TV
programs for 4 years in Australia so a takeup of only 750,000 over that time
is not great. It represents less than 15% market penetration, compared to
Pay TV's 23-30%.

Digital must really have some great benefits for those people hey?

Not necessarily. I know quite a few people who've purchased STBs more out of
curiosity and there have been people who've seen the Woolies $79 models on
special and snapped them up becuase other models they've seen were far more
expensive. There are also the "early adopters" (ie technojunkies) who just
have to have the latest and greatest YESTERDAY, regardless of the price.

What do you think, the 4.5M other people have all weighed up the pros
and cons of digital TV and decided that it's not worth it?
Probably half of them wouldn't have a clue what digital TV is.

And the rest don't give a shit!

Quoting those numbers is meaningless, it's not as simple as that.

The government disagrees. That's why there is an inquiry.

 

[dewatf]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:22:17 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen"
<spam@spam.com> wrote:

"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?

Majority?
That would still involve screwing around nearly half the population.
The UK required 85% to have adopted digital before any switching off
of analogue.

Our legislationdoesn't even say majority, says nothing that protects
comsumer interesters as it was all down from the commerical
broadcasters perspective. All it says is that is it was planed to
happen in 2008, based on the assumption that everyone would have
rushed out to spend thousands on HD equipment, and they there were to
be reviews that the government is still stuffing around with to get
the predetermined results.

dewatf.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4248fc96.27761937@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:22:17 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen"
spam@spam.com> wrote:

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?

Majority?
That would still involve screwing around nearly half the population.
The UK required 85% to have adopted digital before any switching off
of analogue.

Our legislationdoesn't even say majority, says nothing that protects
comsumer interesters as it was all down from the commerical
broadcasters perspective. All it says is that is it was planed to
happen in 2008, based on the assumption that everyone would have
rushed out to spend thousands on HD equipment, and they there were to
be reviews that the government is still stuffing around with to get
the predetermined results.

The 2008 date is - as I said - only a target. There is actually no
legislated cutoff date.

As stated in the media realease announcing the inquiry, "the Australian
public has not bought into the technology, and it is anticipated that
digital television will be taken up by less than 50 per cent of Australian
households by 2008".

I use the word "majority" on that basis, but it would be likely that a
"large majority" would be required before they would consider cutting any
area over to digital.

 

[dmm]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:57:17 +1000, Bazil <nospam@spamfreeindiv.net> wrote:

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?

Victorians





8)

 

[Pedro]

$130 for SD box now so then it will be $50 anyway.
People waste more on a bottle of wine in one night! They will have to get
one or grow a brain.


"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4248CD2C.583DA8D9@internode.on.net...

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

 

[Ian Galbraith]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:29:34 +1000, dmm
<dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:57:17 +1000, Bazil <nospam@spamfreeindiv.net> wrote:
[snip]

Who cares about Eddie Maguire?

Victorians

Er we hate him as much as the rest of Aust. Apart from Collingwood
supporters that is.

 

[Richard Freeman]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Q741e.12162$C7.10178@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Swampfox" <groint@pochta.ru> wrote in message
news:4244bf69$0$5598$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Because Aussies are slack.
If it's not broken - don't fix it.

That's not being slack. That's being practical. If something is working
fine, why replace it?

And why replace it with Something worse?

If you've seen the difference for yourself, then I'd be surprised if you
wouldn't cough up the money for a SD set top box.

Be surprised. I've seen the difference. I still see no point forking out
money for something that I don't need to fork out money for. I have good
FTA reception and Foxtel.

My point is that the technology is vastly superior and when people become
aware of the improvement they'll take it up.

For many people there is no improvement. I live 30km from the main local
FTA Tx site and I see no point to Digital at this time. The main benefit I
see is widescreen but for that to be effective I need at least an 82cm
widescreen TV to replace my 68cm 4:3 TV and that's a bit more than just an

For me Digital offers Inferior performance to Analogue TV. I am probably a
bit less than 30KM from the Transmitters and receive good clean Picture
quality on analogue however the STB (I am now on my Second STB the first had
a noticeable delay between Audio and Picture in addition to the other
problems) often pixelates, freezes and causes loud short squeals.

I do not own a HD TV nor can I justify the cost at the moment so I do not
actually get any benefit from Digital TV unless I was prepared to spend more
money.

I am not really sure why I bothered with the STB -except a Friend lent them
to me long term (ie they were/are free) and I generally find watching
analogue TV a lot less of a nuisance (due to the issues listed above) so I
tend to watch Analogue and probably will until the ignorant sods turn it
off.

I am starting to get the feeling that where the 80's and 90's may have been
about getting Technology to improve performance - ie CD players etc that the
push nowadays is for Consumers to accept lower quality goods ie Digital TV,
Typical 'Home theater Systems' MP3 Players and Mobile phones.

 

[Richard Freeman]

"AJ" <jc373@hotmail.com.au> wrote in message
news:qpl94157dj6juohgp690ukcffa6t1kign1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:31:26 +1100, "Swampfox" <groint@pochta.ru
wrote:



Because digital is better.
No ghosting and a far superior picture.
And for most people the cost is minimal.
Set top boxes can be had for less than $200, which is cheaper than the
aerials required for analogue in poor reception areas.
Live program guides, extra channels on SBS and the ABC, better sound etc.
It's simply a better technology.

Just one other point remember is that the digital signal is still
sent across the air on a modulated analogue signal until it reaches
the decoder, so a lot of the same rules for radio still apply. If you
have poor analogue reception then if the digital signal is coming off
the same stick then your digital may also be crap and you may well
still need that better quality antenna. I also kind of thought reading
around the traps that even if your current analague is good, you may
still need a better antenna for digital, same too with the internal
cable quality and their connections within the building wiring.

The difference of course is the digital signal is a lot more tollerant
due to error correction and probably a bit of fudging in the decoders

It is ??????????? Could have fooled Me !

so you might not notice poor signal quality until you loose the
picture totaly, at least with an analogue signal you can sometimes
still have a watchable picture.

At least with analogue I have a perfect picture. Digital I have a good
Picture with bursts of pixeallation, Freezes, audio Drop outs and occasional
squaeks

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Richard Freeman" <bogoff@nospam.spam> wrote in message
news:3au44sF6d9mvvU1@individual.net...

At least with analogue I have a perfect picture. Digital I have a good
Picture with bursts of pixeallation, Freezes, audio Drop outs and
occasional squaeks

What channels are your analogue stations on?

 

[Typhoid]

Chasing Kate wrote...

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

Here's another idea:

FOAD.

--
Typ speaks. Girls moisten. Men cower.

 

[Richard Freeman]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:M_k2e.17005$C7.16221@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Richard Freeman" <bogoff@nospam.spam> wrote in message
news:3au44sF6d9mvvU1@individual.net...

At least with analogue I have a perfect picture. Digital I have a good
Picture with bursts of pixeallation, Freezes, audio Drop outs and
occasional squaeks

What channels are your analogue stations on?

28,10,9,7,2 (Sydney)