Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[Swampfox]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4243A0C9.56991ABE@internode.on.net...

Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

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.

 

[ferret]

Pooh Bear wrote:

ferret wrote:


If theres crap on TV now with analogue not worth watching,
why watch it in digital ?

It certainly hasn't improved the quality of Television
Programming.


But just look at the huge numbers of channels of crap you can get !


Graham

Great,

1 - A program guide, for those too cheap to buy a paper
44-49 what a waste of air space and power usage.

 

[hadda hadda]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ahs3vF6aoj4sU1@individual.net...

"TheMan" = TheFuckwit

Correction:
Phill = The Fuckwit

Better stop listening to the propaganda and pop down to your local
Harvey Norman
and check it out yourself.

** Got a nice STB at home thanks.

What did you have before? 1955BW AWA?

Digital TV really doesn't look any better then PAL from what I've seen..

** It must have gone blind from all that public wanking.

If you had decent and properly installed TV set, you would not see
difference at all! This is a fact!

it does manage to get rid of "ghosting" that you get in standard TV
reception, but then
you have the downside of having to see shitty pixelization of the image
from the
digital compression.
** This imbecile is right off with the pixies.

When STB has its value shown?

One must have HD TV set
One must have HD STB
One must have decent antenna installation.

 

[ferret]

Swampfox wrote:

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4243A0C9.56991ABE@internode.on.net...

Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?


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.

If Digital is so cheap and so good, why after 5 years it still
only has ~660,000 units installed. Considering Australia is usually
quick to jump on technology bandwagon, Phones,Computers, Internet etc..
From a sales point of view its a complete disaster.

 

[Natalie]

Phil Allison wrote:

** Utter bullshit.

SD digital supplies a DVD quality, noise and ghost free pic that very few
folk have with analogue. Plus a semi wide screen option ( letterbox mode )
that gives more of the picture than analogue 4:3 can.

If you have excellent reception there is no need for a STB, unless you
really need those crappy extra channels. As for WS, blah, I'd actually
rather watch the footy in standard mode! DVDs are what widescreen is
for, if I want to watch it.

I don't have good reception any more because I've got no outside
antenna, but I was watching a DVD of a TV show I used to watch in my old
place that DID have an outside antenna and excellent reception, no
difference in picture quality at all!

None of it changes the absolute crap on TV most of the time. I don't
really need to see ACA on digital thanks.

Natalie

 

[Phil Allison]

"ferret" = "ferkwit"

If Digital is so cheap and so good, why after 5 years it still
only has ~660,000 units installed.

** That many ?? I'm surprised.

Considering Australia is usually
quick to jump on technology bandwagon, Phones,Computers, Internet etc..

** False analogy.

As a result of Govt decree DTV presently offers a picture quality
improvement only .

From a sales point of view its a complete disaster.

** Rot.




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

 

[dmm]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:55:29 +1030, Chasing Kate <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote:

Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?
Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

These questions (other than in the first paragraph) have been
asked and answered and done to death over the past few years
or so...

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

YAWN !!! Bloody Luddites....

 

[Phil Allison]

"Natalie"

Phil Allison wrote:

** Utter bullshit.

SD digital supplies a DVD quality, noise and ghost free pic that very
few
folk have with analogue. Plus a semi wide screen option ( letterbox
mode )
that gives more of the picture than analogue 4:3 can.

If you have excellent reception there is no need for a STB,

** If you have a chauffer there is no need to learn how to drive ....

I don't have good reception any more because I've got no outside
antenna, but I was watching a DVD of a TV show I used to watch in my old
place that DID have an outside antenna and excellent reception, no
difference in picture quality at all!

** Just as asinine as the previous one.

None of it changes the absolute crap on TV most of the time.

** Then don't watch the crap - watch only the decent stuff.



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

 

[Natalie]

Phil Allison wrote:

Folk with poor antennas ( even indoor ones ) and ghosty/noisy installed
systems in block of units find STBs work like magic.

I didn't.

Natalie

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:JV01e.11859$C7.5216@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

That's only reasonably recently and you're looking at the cost for just
one
TV. If I was to go "all digital" in my house I'd have to purchase 7 STBs
to
retain my current functionality (1 for each TV and 1 for each VCR) Even if
I
was to purchased several of the Woolies $70 boxes that's an outlay of
$490.

Even if you did, you can't program the VCR's to change the STB channel when
you're not home!

MrT.

 

[ferret]

From a sales point of view its a complete disaster.



** Rot.

How is this NOT a marketing disaster.

The government is not doing a Inquiry into why TOO many people
have changed over to Digital !

The government is concerned the Mandate to cut-off analogue will
expire before the majority have switched over. The impact of
this would be huge dent in spent advertising tax dollars.

 

[Phil Allison]

"ferret"

From a sales point of view its a complete disaster.


** Rot.


How is this NOT a marketing disaster.

** That is a different question in a new context - dickhead.

Makers and sellers of STBs have made good money from them - the same
designs are sold in Europe and elsewhere.

The government is concerned the Mandate to cut-off analogue will
expire before the majority have switched over.

** Most folk put off whatever is not urgent - when it gets urgent they
finally do it.

Wait and see what the Senate committee reports.





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

 

[Swampfox]

"ferret" <microsoft.hell@localhost.microsft.com> wrote in message
news:3ajngqF6as2rgU1@individual.net...

Swampfox wrote:
"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4243A0C9.56991ABE@internode.on.net...

Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?


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.

If Digital is so cheap and so good, why after 5 years it still
only has ~660,000 units installed. Considering Australia is usually
quick to jump on technology bandwagon, Phones,Computers, Internet etc..
From a sales point of view its a complete disaster.

Because Aussies are slack.
If it's not broken - don't fix it.
Mobile phones and internet were new products.
Digital TV is an improvement to an existing product so there's really no use
comparing the figures.
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.
A friend of mine was living near a high rise less than 10k from the centre
of Melbourne and his analogue reception was RS.
Got quoted $850.00 for a high masted aerial, amplifier etc. so he got
himself a $180.00 TEAC box and the problem was solved.
I have a HD box and TV and can honestly say that the picture quality is
astounding, like watching a moving photograph, admittedly at a price.
My point is that the technology is vastly superior and when people become
aware of the improvement they'll take it up.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Swampfox"

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

** Most folk could not care less about pic quality and sit and watch
atrocious pics with equanimity. However, when the complete absence of a
picture becomes imminent there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth
and a rush to buy the cheapest STBs available.

When FINALLY there is no picture at all to look at THEN even the
slovenliest couch potatoes will be driven to visit the stores - or likely
enterprising dealers will employ folk to drive around the suburbs with van
loads of cheap STBs - selling them door to door for quick cash.




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

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111792487.915136.188230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111789418.094263.114890@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
Cheap STBs cost that much. GOOD ones cost more.

Cheap can mean good too, price is NOT proportional to goodness.
Plenty of good SD STBs on eBay around the $100 mark, even less.

That's sort of true

Read - that's completely true.

No it isn't.

but the cheaper the STU, the fewer features that it will
have. That's fairly true of anything.

So a "good" STB has to have lots of "features" huh?

Generally yes, that is true. .

What are these features the "good" STBs have which the "cheap" STBs do
not?
Does number of features equate to a better quality picture?, or a
better decoder chip?, or a better quality front end?

Yes, yes and yes

Plenty good enough for most people I would think.

Good enough is not necessarily good. It usually means barely adequate.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"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?

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
STB.

 

[Mr.T]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:42442486.B92A4CC@internode.on.net...

Analogue is being phased out and it isn't by
2010. It's at least 2014 in some areas.

Not much help if your not in those areas!
Melb. and Sydney will be the first to switch off. That's a lot of people.
Nearly all TV's still come with an analog only tuner. Even the DVD/HD
recorders people are still buying right now will be obsolete with their
analog tuners. Programming them will be impossible just by adding a STB. The
manufacturers are happy, they get to sell you another set.

MrT.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4244af39$0$5594$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:JV01e.11859$C7.5216@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That's only reasonably recently and you're looking at the cost for just
one
TV. If I was to go "all digital" in my house I'd have to purchase 7 STBs
to
retain my current functionality (1 for each TV and 1 for each VCR) Even
if
I
was to purchased several of the Woolies $70 boxes that's an outlay of
$490.

Even if you did, you can't program the VCR's to change the STB channel
when
you're not home!

Very true, and it means you really need to get rid of the VCR and buy

yourself a PVR which is an extra cost.

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:In41e.12169$C7.11176@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Very true, and it means you really need to get rid of the VCR and buy
yourself a PVR which is an extra cost.

Even many of the current PVR's have analog tuners!
I'm yet to see a DVD/HD recorder in the local shops with a digital tuner in
fact.
Copyright wars seem to be the problem.

MrT.

 

[tony_h]

AJ wrote:

People often compare digital and analogue TV to
DVD's and VCRs, and although there may be an improvement going digital
over analogue for TV its nothing like the improvement from VCR's to
DVD and that is because VHS was a lesser picture quality to broadcast
TV.

Ahh, but that is why I entered the world of digital. My Hifi VCR was
starting to produce god-awful recordings in LP (and mediocre in SP) and
someone suggested to try sussing out a PVR out (Mid 2003). I pre-ordered
the Topfield TF5000PVRt, and have never watched a minute of analogue (at
home) since getting it in Nov 2003. This will change the way you watch TV,
really, and to have the identical picture quality as what was broadcasted
saved away on the HDD is fantastic.
So I am a digital convert, digital is the way forward, and a PVR is the way
to enjoy it the most (esp the Topfield, with 70 timer slots,
dual/overlapping recording/timers, records subtitles/teletext & audio
streams so the viewing experience is identical regardless of whether you
watch it live or 2 weeks later).
Regards
Tony
--
http://tonyspage.abock.de for some Topfield info including turning
those recordings into DVDs, adding features with the open source TAP
environment etc...