Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[dewatf]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:40:31 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

But even more appealing to smaller advertisers that cater for that niche.
Especially if the rates are lower.

Foxtel in this country, and cable in the US even with a 50% share have
struggled to attract much advertising. SBS also struggles and it has
nearly 5% of the FTA market.

FTA in the US has managed to remain profitable, becasue as their
audience share has gone the cost of reaching large numbers of people
has gone up/viewer.

Advertisers like getting to large numbers of people at once.

Not at all. They just shift the same content they are already screening, and
keep showing some of the stuff they currently drop so readily. And repeat
some of the stuff they don't bother with at the moment.

Stufft that appeals to the masses will always be regarded as shit by
those at the edges.

Foxtel tends to show a lot of the same junk that FTA does these days
on Fox 8, Arena and TV 1, just repeats of it.

I find it far better and cheaper to rent DVD's from the local shop.

yep.

Though my local DVD store now only stocks mostly new releases in the
top 20.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 06:46:38 GMT, "Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote:

Correction: "The simulcast period is eight years from the start of digital
OR LONGER IF NECESSARY"

No the period is eight years or longer as presribed by the Government.

The "Longer if necessary" is retrospective interpretation of the
legislation by a committee dominated by Government members after their
plan failed.

I too believe that the analogue system will still be running in 2008.
That is not because it was intended or allowed for

It was allowed for though.

The legislation gives the power to the Government to prescribe the
period through regulation. They made it till the end of 2008.

The point was to pick a date so as everyone would be force to change
by it. Not to have a moving target.

The legislation did not allow for a moving target, it just follows
from the fact that the power to set the period rests in Government
regulations. They could have set a 10 year period and then shortened
it to 8.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:34:57 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com>
wrote:

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f6030.102440484@news.syd.ihug.com.au...
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:58:18 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com
You don't get it do you. You can't give away STBs to everyone (and
even if you could you are just taxing the system somewhere else to pay
for it).

I don't expect them to "give away STBs to everyone". I would think, however,
that some sort of subsidy might be required to get the last stragglers on
board. Given that STBs have dropped to a lowest price of $60, they'll
probably be coming free in cereal packs by 2008, anyway.

$60 by 12 million households by an average of 3 appliances per
household is still $2 140 000 000

One hell of an interem step.

That's exactly why TVs VCRs and DVD recorders should have digital tuners in
them by now.

Why should they?
People perfer them not to.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:21:49 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:6bM3e.22237$C7.6089@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
owned by a phone monopoly) would have been the way to go about that.

Who else would own a cable system or had the resources to install one?

How can Foxtel AND Optus cable TV both be a monopoly?
A duopoly maybe!

They are a monopoly because they have joined forces.
All of the content on them is now regulated by Foxtel.
Optus is just a back up analogue distribution system for the packages,
and Foxtel is planning to pay Optus to upgrade it's cable to the same
digital system as Foxtel's. Telstra is vetoing that because it is not
in a monopolistic arrangement with Optus for telecommunications like
Foxtel is with Optus for Pay TV.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:53:15 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com>
wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:424f65ac$0$30370$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f5dd6.101838515@news.syd.ihug.com.au...
And when you carefully target channels you end up with small niche
audiences.

That's the point.

And the beauty of it is they could target audiences outside their normal
demograph, e.g. if Ten ran a news channel they'd hardly decimate their main
channel, would they?

And why would Channel 10 which has the highest profit margin in the
business want to show a low margin news channel in competition with
every other news channel available on cable and news radio channel?

dewatf.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4250d185.17857281@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:34:57 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com
wrote:
I don't expect them to "give away STBs to everyone". I would think,
however,
that some sort of subsidy might be required to get the last stragglers on
board. Given that STBs have dropped to a lowest price of $60, they'll
probably be coming free in cereal packs by 2008, anyway.

$60 by 12 million households by an average of 3 appliances per
household is still $2 140 000 000

One hell of an interem step.

As if.

1. They would only have to supply the remaining households who hadn't made
the switch already of their own accord.
2. As stated the price will have fallen substantially.
3. The government would not be paying full retail price for such a big order
anyway.
4. The government would presumably only provide one unit per household.

That's exactly why TVs VCRs and DVD recorders should have digital tuners
in
them by now.

Why should they?
People perfer them not to.

Make up your mind. You bemoan having to have a STB for every TV/VCR in the
house, then say that you don't think these appliances should have digital
tuners built in. Besides, how do you know what people prefer, given there is
virtually no choice at the moment?

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4250d292.18125906@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:53:15 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com
wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:424f65ac$0$30370$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f5dd6.101838515@news.syd.ihug.com.au...
And when you carefully target channels you end up with small niche
audiences.

That's the point.

And the beauty of it is they could target audiences outside their normal
demograph, e.g. if Ten ran a news channel they'd hardly decimate their
main
channel, would they?

And why would Channel 10 which has the highest profit margin in the
business want to show a low margin news channel in competition with
every other news channel available on cable and news radio channel?

Because 3/4 of the market doesn't have pay TV? And relaying (for example)
BBC World with local ads would be cheap as chips to run. Ten would increase
its overall audience for next to nothing.

 

[Mr.T]

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4250d40c$0$19167$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

1. They would only have to supply the remaining households who hadn't made
the switch already of their own accord.

How many would NOT put up their hand for a free box. How would you know they
already had one?

2. As stated the price will have fallen substantially.
3. The government would not be paying full retail price for such a big
order
anyway.

The taxpayers, not government.

4. The government would presumably only provide one unit per household.

Why any. Taxpayers would prefer a choice.

People perfer them not to.

Besides, how do you know what people prefer, given there is
virtually no choice at the moment?

Exactly. IMO people would prefer they had both at the same price as now
It will happen too!

MrT.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4250cea4.17120656@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 06:46:38 GMT, "Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote:

No the period is eight years or longer as presribed by the Government.

The "Longer if necessary" is retrospective interpretation of the
legislation by a committee dominated by Government members after their
plan failed.

No, "Longer if necessary" is an English language interpretation of the words
"to run for 8 years or for such longer period as is prescribed in relation
to that area"

The legislation gives the power to the Government to prescribe the
period through regulation. They made it till the end of 2008.

Well, that's all arse about. The Government provided in the legislation that
the simulcast period would run for "8 years
or for such longer period as is prescribed in relation to that area". 8
years just happened to be January 1 2009 (Stations started broadcasting on
January 1 2001)

The point was to pick a date so as everyone would be force to change
by it. Not to have a moving target.

The legislation did not allow for a moving target, it just follows
from the fact that the power to set the period rests in Government
regulations.

Bullshit. The legislation, by the use of the words "to run for 8 years or
for such longer period as is prescribed in relation to that area" provides
for a moving target. The power to set the period lies in legislation, not
regulations.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4250d185.17857281@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:34:57 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com
wrote:

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:424f6030.102440484@news.syd.ihug.com.au...
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:58:18 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com
You don't get it do you. You can't give away STBs to everyone (and
even if you could you are just taxing the system somewhere else to pay
for it).

I don't expect them to "give away STBs to everyone". I would think,
however,
that some sort of subsidy might be required to get the last stragglers on
board. Given that STBs have dropped to a lowest price of $60, they'll
probably be coming free in cereal packs by 2008, anyway.

$60 by 12 million households by an average of 3 appliances per
household is still $2 140 000 000

One hell of an interem step.

And that's an incredible fudging of the figures. According to Ausstats
(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ausstatshome?openview) there will
be about 8,105,003 households in 2008, not 12 million. Interestingly,
accurate figures early last year specifically in relation to TV put the
number of TV equipped households at only 4,941,000 but those figures were
from the TV industry so let's stick with Ausstats.

I don't see how you came up with 3 STBs per housholds. Most households would
have one TV and one VCR. Many would have a 2nd TV but a lot would have only
one TV and no VCR. In any case, the previous poster clearly stated "I don't
expect them to "give away STBs to everyone"". At most one STB would be
supplied to each household to give them one digital capable TV. If they want
more STBs then they would have to pay for the rest.

So the final figure would be closer to $60 x 8,105,003 x 1 which is
$486,300,154, not $2,160,000,000. (Your calculation was wrong by the way!)
That's an error in your calculations of $1,674 billion. I suggest you get an
accountant to do your tax this year.

That's exactly why TVs VCRs and DVD recorders should have digital tuners
in
them by now.

Why should they?
People perfer them not to.

BULLSHIT.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4250f4cd$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4250d40c$0$19167$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
How many would NOT put up their hand for a free box. How would you know
they
already had one?

Even if they supplied one per household the cost would be nowhere near the
ridiculous amount that dewatf suggested.

3. The government would not be paying full retail price for such a big
order anyway.

The taxpayers, not government.

Taxpayers fund the government
Taxpayers pay full retail cost
The government, not the taxpayers would be buying the STBs although the
taxpayers would be reaping the benefits.

4. The government would presumably only provide one unit per household.

Why any. Taxpayers would prefer a choice.

Taxpayers would prefer not to pay for digital at all.

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:iU74e.23618$C7.5988@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

So the final figure would be closer to $60 x 8,105,003 x 1 which is
$486,300,154, not $2,160,000,000.

And if you really think the Government is going to spend $486 Million of
taxpayers money on STB's, I'll bet against it.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news_74e.23627$C7.20256@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Even if they supplied one per household the cost would be nowhere near the
ridiculous amount that dewatf suggested.

But if you think they are going to spend $486 Million, you are crazy.

Taxpayers fund the government
Yep.

Taxpayers pay full retail cost

Only the crazy ones.
Most goverment departments end up paying more than the average consumer for
goods after tender costs etc are taken into account.

The government, not the taxpayers would be buying the STBs although the
taxpayers would be reaping the benefits.

Consumers prefer a choice. Some even want HiDef.

Taxpayers would prefer not to pay for digital at all.

Exactly, but some consumers are happy to do so.
Therefore VERY unlikely to be taxpayer subsidies of STB's.

MrT.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:42524f36$0$5595$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:iU74e.23618$C7.5988@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
So the final figure would be closer to $60 x 8,105,003 x 1 which is
$486,300,154, not $2,160,000,000.

And if you really think the Government is going to spend $486 Million of
taxpayers money on STB's, I'll bet against it.

I didn't say they would. I was just correcting some fudging of figures.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4252511f$0$5596$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news_74e.23627$C7.20256@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Even if they supplied one per household the cost would be nowhere near
the
ridiculous amount that dewatf suggested.

But if you think they are going to spend $486 Million, you are crazy.

Never said they would. I was just correcting some seriosly fudged amounts.

Taxpayers fund the government
Yep.

Taxpayers pay full retail cost

Only the crazy ones.

Are you saying that most people are crazy? I suppose if they're buying a STB
for FTA they are.

Most goverment departments end up paying more than the average consumer
for
goods after tender costs etc are taken into account.

Crap. I used to be in a government projects area and that never happened.
For a start, the government pays no tax. For a buy of 8 million the quantity
discount would be pretty good. That and paying no tax offsets the additional
project management costs. That's why I calculated the cost at $60 per STB
instead of what the government would pay, which would be a lot less based on
my practical experience in buying stuff for the government.

The government, not the taxpayers would be buying the STBs although the
taxpayers would be reaping the benefits.

Consumers prefer a choice. Some even want HiDef.

The project is about getting DSTBs into people's homes. If they want
something better, they pay for it.

Taxpayers would prefer not to pay for digital at all.

Exactly, but some consumers are happy to do so.
Therefore VERY unlikely to be taxpayer subsidies of STB's.

There is no logic in what you say. *Some* people *are* happy to pay but the
government wants *everyone* to go digital and there aren't enough people who
are happy to pay so there needs to be something done to encourage them.

In any case, provision of subsidised STBs was only a suggestion.

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Ont4e.789$5F3.403@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Crap. I used to be in a government projects area and that never happened.
For a start, the government pays no tax.

Irrelevant in this case, since the money is coming fom the same taxpayers as
the boxes are going to. They could make the current boxes tax free if they
wanted, but I bet that will NEVER happen either!

For a buy of 8 million the quantity discount would be pretty good.

But the present government doesn't believe in the communist notion of one
box suits everyone. It would be very funny pushing a privatised health
system, but public distribution of TV DSTB's, IMO.

The project is about getting DSTBs into people's homes. If they want
something better, they pay for it.

Why is it so important people have TV, but not electricity or even food?

There is no logic in what you say. *Some* people *are* happy to pay but
the
government wants *everyone* to go digital and there aren't enough people
who
are happy to pay so there needs to be something done to encourage them.

Not at all, nobody cared if we had a mobile phone after they turned the AMPS
off.
If some people can't watch TV after they turn the ATV system off, I'm sure
no one will care either.

Oops, I suppose Kerry will care, but even he will probably deem someone not
willing to spend $60 is not likely to be much use to the advertisers anyway.
Actually your idea will take away a lot of potential advertising of DSTB's
when the end draws near. So that would not be in his interests anyway.
The government WILL use large amounts of taxpayers money to tell us how much
better DTV is though, and why we should be happy. I'm sure Kerry will be
happy with his share of that.

In any case, provision of subsidised STBs was only a suggestion.

Sure, and all I said was it's not very likely.

MrT.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4252c1e3$0$29867$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Ont4e.789$5F3.403@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Crap. I used to be in a government projects area and that never happened.
For a start, the government pays no tax.

Irrelevant in this case, since the money is coming fom the same taxpayers
as
the boxes are going to.

Why is it not relevant? When the government buys something, it doesn't pay
tax. Your claim was "Most goverment departments end up paying more than the
average consumer for goods after tender costs etc are taken into account."
The fact that the government pays no tax is very relevant to proving that
your claim is wrong.

For a buy of 8 million the quantity discount would be pretty good.

But the present government doesn't believe in the communist notion of one
box suits everyone.

*THAT* is irrelevant. If the Government puts out a tender for 8 million STBs
then they'll get a price for 8 million STBs. The STBs may not all be the
same but that's irrelevant. The STBs will all do the same job and they'll be
provided for a price based on a buy of 8 million. That's the way Government
projects work. Been there, done that.

The project is about getting DSTBs into people's homes. If they want
something better, they pay for it.

Why is it so important people have TV, but not electricity or even food?

Because the government has a plan to convert everyone to digital TV and
people aren't changing over. They already get electricity and food.

There is no logic in what you say. *Some* people *are* happy to pay but
the government wants *everyone* to go digital and there aren't enough
people
who are happy to pay so there needs to be something done to encourage
them.

Not at all, nobody cared if we had a mobile phone after they turned the
AMPS
off.
If some people can't watch TV after they turn the ATV system off, I'm sure
no one will care either.

Maybe you missed a post or two. I've already said that mobile phones weren't
as entrenched into our normal lives as TV is. At the time AMPS was shutoff,
mobile phones were still a small market and anybody who needed a mobile
phone had already purchased a replacement by the time AMPS was shut off.

In any case, provision of subsidised STBs was only a suggestion.

Sure, and all I said was it's not very likely.

And made some silly statements regarding it.

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:9rA4e.1229$5F3.992@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Irrelevant in this case, since the money is coming fom the same
taxpayers
as the boxes are going to.

Why is it not relevant? When the government buys something, it doesn't pay
tax. Your claim was "Most goverment departments end up paying more than
the
average consumer for goods after tender costs etc are taken into account."
The fact that the government pays no tax is very relevant to proving that
your claim is wrong.

Then YOUR cost calculation is wrong because it doesn't take into account the
lost tax revenue.
You can't have it both ways, even though you keep trying.

*THAT* is irrelevant. If the Government puts out a tender for 8 million
STBs
then they'll get a price for 8 million STBs. The STBs may not all be the
same but that's irrelevant. The STBs will all do the same job and they'll
be
provided for a price based on a buy of 8 million. That's the way
Government
projects work. Been there, done that.

Please name the project that supplied 8 million consumer items to taxpayers.
I can't remember any.

Why is it so important people have TV, but not electricity or even food?

Because the government has a plan to convert everyone to digital TV and
people aren't changing over. They already get electricity and food.

Not everyone does! Many people not living in cities have to supply their
own.
Many can't get TV now, and a DSTB won't help them!

If some people can't watch TV after they turn the ATV system off, I'm
sure
no one will care either.

Maybe you missed a post or two. I've already said that mobile phones
weren't
as entrenched into our normal lives as TV is. At the time AMPS was
shutoff,
mobile phones were still a small market and anybody who needed a mobile
phone had already purchased a replacement by the time AMPS was shut off.

I certainly hadn't. Refused to for ages.
I wouldn't wait to buy a DSTB when necessary though.

Sure, and all I said was it's not very likely.
And made some silly statements regarding it.

In YOUR opinion only.
IMO YOUR suggestions are extremely silly. Care to bet on who will be proven
right?
(I bet you don't

MrT.

 

[wh00t-at-me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4253a40b$0$5594$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:9rA4e.1229$5F3.992@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Then YOUR cost calculation is wrong because it doesn't take into account
the
lost tax revenue.

The lost tax revenue is negligible and isn't included when calculating
project costs.

You can't have it both ways, even though you keep trying.

Nice try, but maybe you should learn alittle about the way that the
government actually does business, instead of just assuming.

Please name the project that supplied 8 million consumer items to
taxpayers.
I can't remember any.

The number is irrelevant. The policies are the same regardless of the
number. Again, you're assuming about the way the government does business.

Why is it so important people have TV, but not electricity or even
food?

Because the government has a plan to convert everyone to digital TV and
people aren't changing over. They already get electricity and food.

Not everyone does! Many people not living in cities have to supply their
own.

Whether they supply their own electricity or get it from the grid, they
still get electricity.

Many can't get TV now, and a DSTB won't help them!

Very good. Tell me something I don't know. The great majority of Australians
do and that's the point.

I certainly hadn't. Refused to for ages.

That's one holdout. There's always an exception or two. They just miss out.

I wouldn't wait to buy a DSTB when necessary though.

Goodie for you. I suppose that means you're inconsistent. NAd of course, if
the government were to offer free STBs you wouldn't put your hand up for one
because you already have one.

And made some silly statements regarding it.

In YOUR opinion only.

No, they were pretty silly.

IMO YOUR suggestions are extremely silly.

What suggestions? All I've done is corrected some very poor maths, corrected
you on a few gross errors in your assumptions and said that the proposal to
offer free STBs was only a suggestion.

Care to bet on who will be proven right?
(I bet you don't

I'll bet $5billion that I've alrewady been proven right. I'll expect your
cheque in the mail.

 

[Mr.T]

"wh00t-at-me" <hsfd8dhw6@fdsbdy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h7P4e.1907$5F3.408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Then YOUR cost calculation is wrong because it doesn't take into account
the lost tax revenue.

The lost tax revenue is negligible and isn't included when calculating
project costs.

Either their are cost savings because of not paying tax, or the cost savings
are negligable.
As I said..

You can't have it both ways, even though you keep trying.

The number is irrelevant. The policies are the same regardless of the
number. Again, you're assuming about the way the government does business.

I assumed nothing, I asked for some details and note that none were
provided.

Whether they supply their own electricity or get it from the grid, they
still get electricity.

Whether they are supplied with DSTB's or buy their own, they can still get
DTV!

Many can't get TV now, and a DSTB won't help them!

Very good. Tell me something I don't know. The great majority of
Australians
do and that's the point.

They should be subsidised by those that can't?

That's one holdout. There's always an exception or two. They just miss
out.

Yep, there might be some of those when Analog TV is turned off and NO free
DSTB's are provided too.

I wouldn't wait to buy a DSTB when necessary though.

Goodie for you. I suppose that means you're inconsistent.

No, I just have priorities.

NAd of course, if
the government were to offer free STBs you wouldn't put your hand up for
one
because you already have one.

I don't have one, and of course I would put my hand up since MY taxes would
be paying for it.

No, they were pretty silly.

In YOUR opinion only.

IMO YOUR suggestions are extremely silly.

What suggestions? All I've done is corrected some very poor maths,
corrected
you on a few gross errors in your assumptions and said that the proposal
to
offer free STBs was only a suggestion.

All I've done is corrected some very poor maths, corrected
you on a few gross errors in your assumptions and said that the proposal to
offer free STBs was not a good suggestion and unlikely to be implemented.

Care to bet on who will be proven right?
(I bet you don't

I'll bet $5billion that I've alrewady been proven right. I'll expect your
cheque in the mail.

Since the government HAVEN'T already sent out 8 million free DSTB's (a
couple to politicians only so far), I will wait for YOUR $5 million cheque
in the mail!

MrT.