Digital TV: Why do we have to have it? - Page 5

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed. But I would rather have extra digital channels than dual
transmission for ever.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'd love to know how Phil programs his VCR to tape from his STB, turn it on,
and change channels when he's not home.
Or how he proposes to do it when analog transmission is turned off.

It will be partly useless anyway!

MrT.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Except analogue mobile phones... perhaps?

Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Analogue phones were a different kettle of fish. I got my first mobile phone
in mid 1997. I tried to get a digital phone but there were none available.
That was definitely a waste. The phase-in was too quick, unlike digital
which has been phasing in forever it seems.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Same story here.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

$520 down the drain in my case. Ten bottles of very good
whisky :-(



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it
Eek! I got a standard Motorola phone on a $10 per month plan. I can't
remember what the phone cost but I know it wasn't much, if anything at all.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it
It's only 2008 in some areas. Analogue will be around until at least 2014
and probably longer in some areas.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it


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?



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:22:17 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:33:30 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

For metropolitian areas the legislation states that the simulcast
period is to run for the proscribed 8 years from the introduction of
digital. At the end of that period the analogue spectrum is to be
handed back to the Government to be sold off. That is till  the end of
2008.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A guestimate in a media release of what percentage have taken up the
technology by 2008 has nothing what so ever to do with the
legislation.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A large majority would be sensible (the UK specified 85%), however
there are no such conditions specificed in Digital Conversion
amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act.

Yes the legislation has failed and is broken. The Government will most
likely be forced to heed the results of the various reviews into
digital broadcasting and amend it before 2008.

However the legislation that the broadcasters, electronics
manufacturers and consumers are all operating under at the moment says
that analogue will be switched off in 2008. The Government has not
indicated, or enacted, anything to the contrary.

dewatf.

Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load 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



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



<snip>
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<snip>
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.")

:-)

--
"The Internet is an important cultural phenomenon, but that doesn't excuse its
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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)).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

See above.
source:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/1996-99/tv/report/c02.htm



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:38:37 +1000, "Kevin Hendrikssen"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have read it.


dewatf.

Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.


Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

The two main points being:
1. The simulcast period is at least 8 years and posssibly longer
2. There is no legislated cutoff date.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.





Site Timeline