Digital TV: Why do we have to have it? - Page 8

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

You do not have any idea what the difference is between a fact and an
opinion then.

MrT.



Why do we have to have it?




You do not have any idea what the difference is between a fact and an
opinion then.



***** Yes we do!!!

A FACT is a very small rare animal that lives around the hairs of a flea's
balls,which,when pursued,runs around in ever decreasing circles until it
finally disappears up its own fundamental orifice leaving the pursuer
completly baffled.

That's a fact!!!

Brian Goldsmith.



Re: Why do we have to have it?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Aha, just like the trolls here :-)

MrT.



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

And that's an incredible fudging of the figures. According to Ausstats
(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ snipped-for-privacy@.nsf/ausstatshome?openview ) there will
be about 8,105,003 households in 2008, not 12 million. Interestingly,
accurate figures early last year specifically in relation to TV put the
number of TV equipped households at only 4,941,000 but those figures were
from the TV industry so let's stick with Ausstats.

I don't see how you came up with 3 STBs per housholds. Most households would
have one TV and one VCR. Many would have a 2nd TV but a lot would have only
one TV and no VCR. In any case, the previous poster clearly stated  "I don't
expect them to "give away STBs to everyone"".  At most one STB would be
supplied to each household to give them one digital capable TV. If they want
more STBs then they would have to pay for the rest.

So the final figure would be closer to $60 x 8,105,003 x 1 which is
$486,300,154, not $2,160,000,000. (Your calculation was wrong by the way!)
That's an error in your calculations of $1,674 billion. I suggest you get an
accountant to do your tax this year.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

BULLSHIT.



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

And if you really think the Government is going to spend $486 Million of
taxpayers money on STB's, I'll bet against it.

MrT.



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

I didn't say they would. I was just correcting some fudging of figures.



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

You don't seem to get it. There is no alternative to that. You can't expect
everybody to go out and buy a new digital TV and throw their existing TVs
away. STBs are necessary.



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

The intentions of those who framed the legislation was not to make the
simulcast period longer if necessary.

It was to empower the Government to prescribe a period that suited
them, with eight years being the minimum they thought they could push
it off into the future to get the networks to agree. And that is what
they did.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The simulcast period is eight years from the start of digital, and for
remote areas the ABA gets to precribe the period. That is who seperate
issue, one the Government didn't give a damn about. They only cared
about making billions out of reselling the spectrum in capital cities
(it was the time of ridiculous prices for spectrum auctions remember).


I too believe that the analogue system will still be running in 2008.
That is not because it was intended or allowed for however, it is
because what was intended  has failed.

dewatf.


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



Quoted text here. Click to load it
If it wasn't, then why is the provision in the Act? I'm sure it wasn't to
use toner.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Correction: "The simulcast period is eight years from the start of digital
OR LONGER IF NECESSARY"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was allowed for though.



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

No the period is eight years or longer as presribed by the Government.

The "Longer if necessary" is retrospective interpretation of the
legislation by a committee dominated by Government members after their
plan failed.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The legislation gives the power to the Government to prescribe the
period through regulation. They made it till the end of 2008.

The point was to pick a date so as everyone would be force to change
by it. Not to have a moving target.

The legislation did not allow for a moving target, it just follows
from the fact that the power to set the period rests in Government
regulations. They could have set a 10 year period and then shortened
it to 8.

dewatf.


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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, "Longer if necessary" is an English language interpretation of the words
"to run for 8 years or for such longer period as is prescribed in relation
to that area"


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, that's all arse about. The Government provided in the legislation that
the simulcast period would run for "8 years
or for such longer period as is prescribed in relation to that area". 8
years just happened to be January 1 2009 (Stations started broadcasting on
January 1 2001)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Bullshit. The legislation, by the use of the words "to run for 8 years or
for such longer period as is prescribed in relation to that area" provides
for a moving target. The power to set the period lies in legislation, not
regulations.



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's what I just said.


 At the end of the period there is set out a switching off
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



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


On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:04:04 +1000, "Phil Allison"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A DVD quality picture is only slightly better than a PAL one (it will
just be a bit crisper). When watching VHS, as I do most of the time,
then then the picture is below PAL quality no matter whether I spend
$100 on STBs (and have to programme that to record something) or not.

I have no ghosting, I have no noise (except on SBS when there is a
downpour). The only extra channels are SBS foreign news and repeats of
ABC programmes. I get ABC2 on Foxtel, never actually wanted to watch
anything on it though.

A $150 analogue VCR will provide stereo and record programmes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yet they don't abandon analogue, even for $100 STBs.

And one STB won't get you off analogue. To do what I do now I would
need 3 STBs or a DVR with tuners that could tape 2 programmes while
watching a 3rd. And that will cost far more than $100. And to get
significant benefits in picture and sound spend a lot more on a
widescreen TV and surround sound stereo system.

And the other TV in the house would some thing similar.

A $100 STB would make bugger all difference to my views, as it would
for most people, which is why they haven't bothered.

dewatf.







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



"dewatf" ...
 "Phil Allison"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


 **  It is dramatically better   -  you pig ignorant fuckhead.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


 **  You are not the subject -  fuckhead.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


 **  You are not the subject -  fuckhead.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


 **  You are not he subject -  fuckhead.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


**  You are not he subject -  fuckhead.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


**  You are not most people - fuckhead.



............   Phil



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Analogue, not PAL.



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


I cant see the point of having it yet when all there is to offer is SBS2 and
ABC2.
Once other channels come online and set top box prices drop, people might
consider it.
To get the full benefit people would have to buy a new widescreen tv with a
digital decoder built in.
These are still too expensive for most people.
Also its a hit and miss for peole in remote or hilly country.They might have
ok analoue reception but might have no digital or it might dissapear when
cloudy or raining or depending on atmospheric conditions.

Quoted text here. Click to load it



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



dewatf wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

What "great expense"?
Standard definition STBs can be had for less than $100.
Simply plug in and go with your existing TV and antenna in most cases.
You get the massive benefits of better picture quality and widescreen
(for those with a WS set).

Dave :)


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



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.
Not all that long ago it would have cost $1,400 and a couple of years ago
the cost would have been $3,500.



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



Quoted text here. Click to load it
one
to
I
$490.

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

MrT.



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



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



Site Timeline