Digital TV: Why do we have to have it? - Page 7

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).

STBs are the major problem anyway. There is a reason why all TVs and
VCRs have had turners built into them, it makes them much easier to
use all you have to do is plug a power cord and an aerial into them,
and the connect them with an RF cable. Then you have the ability to
watch, tape and timeshift TV.

A system that requires Pay TV STBs, TV STBs and  VCR STBs is going to
have problems.



There is no cunning plan, which is why they went with forced switching
of analogue.

dewatf.

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.



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



Of course. STBs are only the interim step between the existing technology
and the future when they eventually stop making gear with analogue tuners in
them.

$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.



Why should they?
People perfer them not to.

dewatf.

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.



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?

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


order

The taxpayers, not government.



Why any. Taxpayers would prefer a choice.




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

MrT.

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



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.



Taxpayers would prefer not to pay for digital at all.

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


Yep.


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.



Consumers prefer a choice. Some even want HiDef.



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

MrT.

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



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



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



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.

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!



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.



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


the
who

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.



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

MrT.

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.



*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.



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



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.


And made some silly statements regarding it.

taxpayers
the

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.


STBs
be
Government

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



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!


sure
weren't
shutoff,

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



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.

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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



No, they were pretty 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.



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

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.



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



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


Australians

They should be subsidised by those that can't?


out.

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



No, I just have priorities.


one

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



In YOUR opinion only.


corrected
to

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.




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.

It really doesn't matter. Any lost tax revenue, perceived or otherwise, is
not included when calculating project costs. End of story.



You've been making assumptions all along.



You were provided with the appropriate answer to your question. The fact
that you asked *that* question clearly demonstrates that you don't have any
idea how government purchasing works, especially as relating to larger
projects.



Nice try but the point is ATM, everybody gets electricity and food. ATM,
most people don't get Digital TV.



It's not simply a case of being subsidised. The government has a plan to get
people to turn to digital TV and if it they won't do it voluntarily, some
other method has to be looked at. Turning off the anolague system less than
12 months before an election whil a large proportion still don't have the
means to watch digital is not a smart move. What would YOU suggest?



At the moment it looks like there might be millions of voting people who
will be left out.



No, they *WERE* pretty silly. End of story.



If you're going to use those words, it might help your credibility if you
had actually done those things. You haven't so you just look more silly.



I think you should go back through the posts and reread a few. Then you
might want to retract that because you're looking quite stupid now.