Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

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?

Reply to
Kevin Hendrikssen
Loading thread data ...

Because 3/4 of the market doesn't have pay TV? And relaying (for example) BBC World with local ads would be cheap as chips to run. Ten would increase its overall audience for next to nothing.

Reply to
Kevin Hendrikssen

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


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!


Reply to

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"

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)

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.

Reply to

And that's an incredible fudging of the figures. According to Ausstats

formatting link
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.


Reply to

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.

Reply to

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


Reply to

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


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.


Reply to

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

Reply to

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.

Reply to

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?



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.


Reply to

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.

Reply to



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.




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!




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 :-)


Reply to

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.

Reply to

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!


They should be subsidised by those that can't?


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.


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.



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!


Reply to

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.

Reply to

But affects the Budget bottom line. End of story.

Yes, I assumed you were not quite so stupid. I apologise that I was wrong.




They will delay the cut off till after the election.

At the moment. And *IF* their vote depends on a $60 DSTB subsidy when taxes are at record levels, and more important issues need to be addressed, then we will all end up with the government THEY deserve, as usual.

YOU are pretty silly, end of story.



Why haven't I received my free STB *IF* as you claim they have sent out 8 million?

Just WHO is looking stupid??????


Reply to

No it doesn't. Not at all.

I see that now you have no further arguments you've resorted to insults. Rather childish. It's obviously pointless replying to you from this point.

Reply to

As opposed to yours you've thrown about all along? But then you never had any arguments so I suppose that figures.


Reply to

I haven't insulted you. You do that to yourself.

No, I had facts.

Reply to

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.