Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

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

Regards, John

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

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

Victorians.

MrT.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

I agree.

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

their

image

most

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

That's why

Digital

like the

inbuilt

screen. That

limits

situations

it

wonderful

people

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 :)

"Who_tat_me"

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

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

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.

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%.

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.

And the rest don't give a shit!

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

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.

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.

Victorians

8)

$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.

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