Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

... and they won't act till 2007. They know that if DTV is as good as could be with WS, HD and multichanneling that it could hurt prescription TV. So they'll sit on their hands and let tye media power brokers in Stokes and Packer make DTV as about as successful as their program guides.

Mitch

The Committee wishes to stress that the legislation does not provide for an automatic analog `shut-down' in the year 2008.

2.47 The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 provides (in the case of commercial free-to-air stations) for a simulcast period (sometimes referred to as a `phase-in' period) of 8 years or for such longer period as is prescribed in relation to that area (paragraph 5 (2) (c) of proposed Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA)). 2.48 The decision as to whether that period should be extended beyond 8 years will be made following a statutory review. This review would include the consumer take-up rates of digital television (whether through new sets or set-top boxes) and other issues, such as coverage, recognising the objective that digital coverage must fully replicate analog coverage by the end of the simulcasting period. The Bill specifies that that review must take place before 31 December 2005 (Subclause 57(1) of proposed Schedule 4 to the BSA). While the simulcast period cannot end before 2008, it could be extended well beyond that date if the need for analog transmissions remains.

See above. source:

That isn't what the legislation says. The legislation (Broadcasting Services Act 1992 - Schedule 4 - Digital television broadcasting) states that the simulcast period for broadcasts in non-remote areas is "to run for 8 years or for such longer period as is prescribed in relation to that area". (S6(3)(c)) For remote areas the simulcast period is to be as determined by the ABA. (S6(7)) As was correctly stated by Kevin Hendrikssen, there is no legislated cutoff date. Nor does there need to be as the Act makes provision for the simulcast period to run for as long as is necessary.

Didn't you see the smiley, a few lines below??

Wow. Who is your doctor? Is it covered by PBS or do you have to pay full price for it? How long does the scrip cover? Do you get time off work? ("Sorry. Can't do that project now. Doctor's orders. Have to watch a Seinfeld marathon.")

:-)

--
Clive Newall  / ITG Australia Ltd, Melbourne Australia
"The Internet is an important cultural phenomenon, but that doesn't excuse its 
failure to comply with basic economic laws. The problem is that it was devised 
by a bunch of hippie anarchists who didn't have a strong profit motive."
-- Thomas Nolle, a New Jersey telecommunications consultant. (LATimes,26Jul01)

No it provides for a simulacast period, currently set at 8 years for metropolitian regions, and then outlines in details the procedures for the handing over of tranmission licences so the spectrum can be returned the Government to be auctioned off.

They say Tomarto and I say Tomaato.

All of the free spectrum given out, the future licencing system, multichanneling, datacasting, and additional channels were all designed with the forced move to digital by 2008 in mind. Exactly the same as they constructed the telecommunication market and change to GSM around the forced shut down of analogue AMPS network.

The Government intended to shut down analogue in 2008, they have used that to try and push the technology, and whenever they have been challenged they have refused to accept that the date might have to be extended. When Alston realised that his DTV system was broken and took a proposal to fix it to cabinet he was rolled. The review into extra commercial licences has since been junked and the decision handed over to the Minister so the Government can control and exploit it politically.

Yes I know there is a review, I stated so. There is nothing that says that there must be a majority or a high take up digital before the analogue is switched off. The only requirment is that digital must be available with comparable coverage and the other issues must be "considered". They can quite easily consider them and find the level of uptake is sufficient if that is what the Government requires.

It is not the review that is going mean anything, the review will just reflect the politics.

And as I said the odds are they will have to extend the analogue signal, just like they were forced to extend AMPS for a while in rural areas, and have Telstra create a CDMA network for rural areas.

You can sure however that the process will have nothing to do with what is in cosumers interests.

I have read it.

dewatf.

Keep on watching, you're paying for it.. I'd love to know how many ppl have withdrawn from Pay with the new decoding system and the death of the "card".

Mitch

The Act does not make any provision for the simulcast period to run as long as necessary. The Act only requires a simulcast period that must be at least 8 years be prescribed for each area. And for metropolitian areas that was set by the Government was the minimum eight years. It is currently 8 years.

And that the period *may*, note *may*, be extended by the review.

dewatf.

The two main points being:

1. The simulcast period is at least 8 years and posssibly longer
2. There is no legislated cutoff date.

So in the end it will depend on who donates how much to election campaign funds, and what they want in return. Just like always.

MrT.

The main points being:

1) That the legislaton requires a simulcast period of only a minimum of 8 years. At the end of the period there is set out a switching off of the analogue signal so the govenment can flog of the spectrum.

2) Under the leglislation the the government gets to presribe the length of the simulcast period for non-remote areas. [For remote areas the ABA not the government gets to prescribe the length of period.]

3) The Government prescribed an 8 year period ending in 2008, under the powers granted by the legislation.

4) The legislation does not take into account in any fashion consumers preferences for analogue. There is supposed to be a review, and it will take submissions, but there is nothing specificed as to what is an acceptable level of uptake before the analogue signal is switched off. Unlike in the UK where they set a target date and a minimum level of uptake of 85% to give people some idea of the process and to protect their rights.

5) The only thing that is definitely set out in this legislation is that a digital signal must be available in the area covered by analogue, there is nothing that states that a majority of consumers must have switched before the analogue signal is switched of, as was falsely claimed.

dewatf.

If you're referring to my post:

I was suggesting that - despite the lack of legislation requiring a majority - that it'd be highly unlikely they would force an analogue shutdown if there hasn't been a significant majority uptake. This is purely my opinion, of course.

That's what I just said.

At the end of the period there is set out a switching off

You aren't a lawyer are you? That's a lot of extra waffle that has nothing to do with what I said.

It's also a valid suggestion. A federal election is due in late 2007 and if people haven't taken up digital by then the government won't be forcing a shutoff of analogue in non-remote areas if they want to be re-elected. Analogue TV is not like the analogue mobile phone network. When that was shut off it wasn't anywhere near as embedded into our lifestyle as TV is. If they shut off analogue TV and overnight people have nothing to watch, there will be riots. The government is more likely to extend the simulcast period than chop it off at the 8 year point. The Act clearly states that the simulcast period is "to run for 8 years or for such longer period as is prescribed" so the intention to extend the simulcast period for longer if necessary seems to have been in the minds of those who framed the legislation.

Many remote areas still don't have digital TV and won't for at least 12 months. Supply of STBs for those areas is bound to be a problem. Most will be taken by the cities and won't get to the remote areas so there will still need to be a reasonable phase-in period for those people. In practice, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the simulcast period is extended for at least 2 or 3 years.

Ironically the UK has just done its first cutover and (perhaps wisely) have done it in some tiny Welsh villages (460 households). They were "provided with" STBs, which implies they were given to them, although some may have had already bought boxes for Freeview anyway (and others might have had digital payTV).

As for how much longer the simulcast will run than currently legislated is anyone's guess. If the government comes up with some cunning plan to actually make digital TV attractive to the masses then there won't be any need to extend it at all.

Of course that's the hard part isn't it? The only way to do it, IMO, is to supply people with subsidised STBs and I don't mean ones of the quality that they sell in Woolies. A friend of mine gotone and it's here at the moment. I used it for two nights and then put it back in its box. I like the widescreen but that's the only thing the box can give me that I don't have already.

"Who_tat_me" wrote in news:yYp3e.20943$ snipped-for-privacy@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

No, the only way to do it is reverse the law that makes it illegal for TV stations to show alternative programming on the various other digital channels they have. Once that is done, people will buy their own boxes.

Even if you revoke that part of the legislation, in order for it to work the networks have to come on board and seeing that they argued for that part of the legislation, I don't see it happening.

Ten argues that if just one of them starts multi-channelling, then they will all have no choice but to follow suit. They know that Seven will probably be first to do it given the opportunity, of course, and they're running scared. Shame they see it as such a threat and not as an opportunity. If they targeted their secondary channels at a new audience they wouldn't risk decimating their primary ratings channel, would they?

What we need is more carefully-targetted channels, like a news channel, music channel, youth channel, etc... not more watered-down facsimiles of what we already have. Why not retransmit BBC World with locally-inserted ads, or MTV or whatever? Does Foxtel have the FTA rights sewn up for these as well? The cost to the networks would be minimal and ads would cover them and more, surely. Freeview in the UK carries a number of international channels usually carried by pay TV so I don't see why it couldn't be done here.

Alternatively, how about a music channel where people call a 190 number to request clips (a la TMF)? That would surely pay for itself. Virtually no staff involvement, just a paying jukebox.

The encumbants simply don't want to make any extra effort and insist on retaining their nice little oligopoly. Funny that.