Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

C

Chasing Kate

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Chasing Kate"
But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

** Analogue TV was invented in the 1930s and colour TV came out in the
early 1950s - it was a product of the valve era which has lasted a very
long time. Similarly for AM and FM broadcast radio which will go digital
too before long.

Digital TV simply offers too many technical benefits to ignore at a cost to
the consumer that is tiny.

http://www.abc.net.au/reception/digital/digi_benefits.htm

............. Phil

D

dude

Jan 1, 1970
0
: This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
: to work damn fine in other parts of the world so why change
: it?

Absolutely no reason, except arbitrary parliamentary decisions. It was the same
with the phase-out of analogue mobile phones, it actually didn't NEED to happen,
but the govt. decreed that it would, by a certain date.

W

Who_tat_me

Jan 1, 1970
0
dude said:
: This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
: to work damn fine in other parts of the world so why change
: it?

Absolutely no reason, except arbitrary parliamentary decisions. It was the
same
with the phase-out of analogue mobile phones, it actually didn't NEED to
happen,
but the govt. decreed that it would, by a certain date.
That's a rather simplistic and misinformed opinion.

B

Brissie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

Most countries in the world like the US, UK, Canada, etc are now
almost 100% digital.

K

KLR

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

----------------------------

The benefits that I can think of off the top of my head are

MUCH MUCH less power used at the transmission sites, (for the same
given range) and I think you can even run many different stations from
the one transmitter unit whereas now you need a separate transmitter
for each station (all coupled into the one transmission aerial in some
cases though)

+The cost savings at a typical transmission site would be enormous
when you also take into account the extra energy used in air
conditioning, fan cooling and such that's needed to get rid of the
heat from an analog transmitter.

+Much better picture quality. Waste of time for most people that use
a 14"-20" (maybe 26") set - but with a big screen or projector system

+Less use of the broadcast band

+Easy to improve the system by simple upgrades to the software at both
ends. Less need to replace the entire transmitter/receiver, or major
parts of it, however in our modern throw-away society - it probably
doesn't matter that much anymore in the market place if something is

--------------------------------------

The downside is that any digital system could be used by unscrupulous
operators now or in the future to select who is going to view what,
and to charge exhorbitant prices for access rather than the "free and
open system" that we have now where for the cost of a TV set - you can
view whatever you want to view for no charge for the life of the set.
(well - until FTA is finally turned off for good)

Sadly - the way the laws are made here - I can't see much good coming
out of all this for the consumer at the end of the day

-----------------

My experience too (as a consumer) with the digital STB is that, just
like pay TV units and such, you have this stupid hillbilly system of
having only one channel being output at one time from the box - this
means another remote control to fiddle with, another ugly piece(s) of
shit to sit near the TV (and wire into the system) the inability to
record one program while watching another, and if you have one of the
Picture in Picture sets - that function is rendered useless too. To
most people, including myself - its just a bloody hassle that I don't
want or need, and that in this day and age of cheap hi-tech electronic
devices - simply should have been fixed long ago. for non-technical
consumers - it must really give them the shits having to go through
such a rigmarole too if they ever want to do anything more than just
watch the one channel on the one set at the one time.

------------------------------------------

if STB's did rebroadcast all (or at least several user preselected)
channels down to the UHF band - so you could easily select them from
the TV with your exitsing TV remote, (as you can currently do now
with FTA programs), it would make a big difference.

Make a "rebroadcasting" unit like I described - and install it into
the residence out of sight and out of mind and "trasparent" to the end
user and I feel it will eliminate a major obstacle to consumer
acceptance rate of digital would improve.

Let's face it also - except for the extra TV channel (abc kids
programs) - and one (not bad) ABC radio station that I get on mine -
there still isn't a huge incentive for the average person with the
average relatively small screen to buy one.

P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"TheMan" = TheFuckwit
and check it out yourself.

** Got a nice STB at home thanks.

Digital TV really doesn't look any better then PAL from what I've seen..

** It must have gone blind from all that public wanking.

it does manage to get rid of "ghosting" that you get in standard TV
reception, but then
you have the downside of having to see shitty pixelization of the image
from the
digital compression.

** This imbecile is right off with the pixies.

............ Phil

P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"KLR"
The benefits that I can think of off the top of my head are

MUCH MUCH less power used at the transmission sites,

** It is less - but not dramatically.

Once all planned HD and SD signals are on air * together* there will be
almost no benefit - the full power of the original transmitter will still
be needed.

+The cost savings at a typical transmission site would be enormous
when you also take into account the extra energy used in air
conditioning, fan cooling and such that's needed to get rid of the
heat from an analog transmitter.

** No such benefit exists.

+Much better picture quality. Waste of time for most people that use
a 14"-20" (maybe 26") set

** What drivel - the improvement ( no noise of ghosts) is visible on all
sets.

+Less use of the broadcast band

** Some VHF space will be opened up - UHF is going to get real crowded
though.

My experience too (as a consumer) with the digital STB is that, just
like pay TV units and such, you have this stupid hillbilly system of
having only one channel being output at one time from the box

** Dual channel STBs exist.

To
most people, including myself - its just a bloody hassle that I don't
want or need, and that in this day and age of cheap hi-tech electronic
devices - simply should have been fixed long ago.

** To decode two MPEG signals at once almost doubles the amount of
circuitry needed.

if STB's did rebroadcast all (or at least several user preselected)
channels down to the UHF band

** Total pipe dream - off with the pixies stuff.

Let's face it also - except for the extra TV channel (abc kids
programs) - and one (not bad) ABC radio station that I get on mine -
there still isn't a huge incentive for the average person with the
average relatively small screen to buy one.

** There will be in a couple of years ;-)

................ Phil

F

ferret

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chasing said:
Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

One of stuffs the govt was to put the cart before the horse.
They blackmailed the TV stations to change to digital or loose your
license well before any STB or Digital TVs became available to the
general public. Then theres the marketing balls up, retailers of
equipment had no idea and no training. Not even the stores had a
picture that was even remotely watchable, and always blamed the
equipment.

Compared to the Intro of Color
TAFEs were training techs on all factors of the new system,
years before it was released. The acceptance of color was
very quick, even though it was expensive.

And theres the regional areas......
Some can't even get a Phone on, so how are they going to get
digital TV.

P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"ferret" = ferkwit
One of stuffs the govt was to put the cart before the horse.
They blackmailed the TV stations to change to digital or loose your
license well before any STB or Digital TVs became available to the
general public.

** Totally false.

Then theres the marketing balls up, retailers of
equipment had no idea and no training.

** None is needed.

Not even the stores had a
picture that was even remotely watchable, and always blamed the
equipment.

** Blatant lie.

Compared to the Intro of Color
TAFEs were training techs on all factors of the new system,

** Asinine drivel - STBs are piss simple to use with any TV and antenna.

And theres the regional areas......
Some can't even get a Phone on, so how are they going to get
digital TV.

** Ever heard of radio waves - ferkwit ??

No wires involved !!

............ Phil

F

ferret

Jan 1, 1970
0
If theres crap on TV now with analogue not worth watching,
why watch it in digital ?

It certainly hasn't improved the quality of Television
Programming.

D

dewatf

Jan 1, 1970
0
That is all rubbish.

The reason colour was sucessful was because adding colour was a
significant improvement in the veiwing experience.

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.
Anything that could have appealed to viewers like extra content was
banned to please Packer and Ten.

Digital TV has sort of worked where it is suitable: Pay TV. People
will pay the extra for digital pay TV, which by the way has picture
and sound of far less quality than the FTA HD standard that was

The idea that people will pay more to watch the same FTA stuff full of
ads in digital was the problem.

dewatf.

P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"dewatf"
The reason colour was sucessful was because adding colour was a
significant improvement in the veiwing experience.

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.

** Crap - good STBs cost around $100. In 1976, a colour TV cost$700 to $800 = about$4000 to $5000 today. .............. Phil T Terry Collins Jan 1, 1970 0 Who_tat_me said: That's a rather simplistic and misinformed opinion. You are correct there. By talking about phasing out the analoge phone system, the political parties encouraged a lot of political donations. R Richard Wilkins Jan 1, 1970 0 Terry said: Phil Allison wrote: Hmm, let me guess, 1 tower for analogue and 20 towers for digital. I would be far better spending the money for watching TV over the web. The money you would otherwise spend installing 20 towers? P Phil Allison Jan 1, 1970 0 "Terry Collins" Hmm, let me guess, 1 tower for analogue and 20 towers for digital. ** Keep guessing - and wanking. ........... Phil W Who_tat_me Jan 1, 1970 0 TheMan said: Better stop listening to the propaganda and pop down to your local Harvey Norman and check it out yourself. Digital TV really doesn't look any better then PAL from what I've seen... it does manage to get rid of "ghosting" that you get in standard TV reception, but then you have the downside of having to see shitty pixelization of the image from the digital compression. As the previous poster said, Digital TV simply offers too many *technical* benefits. How it looks is just one benefit. P Poxy Jan 1, 1970 0 Chasing said: Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment looking into why more people are not purchasing digital set top boxes.... In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO...... But the one question I'd like answered is why? Why do we have to go to full digital TV? This is a forced death for the existing system which seems to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change it? With DTV, you get more efficient use of the existing spectrum - ie. more channels in the same space. This opens the opportunity for more content, but government legislation severly restricts what extra material can be broadcast on free-to-air. That said, from a consumer point of view, there is little benefit. Analogue TV looks great on a properly-tuned TV, DTV doesn't necessarily look any better, and the artefats that occur due to poor signal or poor encoding are more noticeable HDTV might be a great idea theoretically, but I'd argue that consumers would have a hard time picking it from standard def pictures. T Terry Collins Jan 1, 1970 0 Richard said: The money you would otherwise spend installing 20 towers? Naah, the money I would spend on getting the set top box and new widescreen TV could be invested and interest spent on better adsl service.. T Terry Collins Jan 1, 1970 0 Phil said: ** Crap - good STBs cost around$100.

But apart from penile sublimation of bragging rights, why would I spend
it to get the same crap I get now.
In 1976, a colour TV cost $700 to$ 800 = about $4000 to$ 5000 today.

That one died along time ago and when it comes to \$4,000 dollars, well
that is about enough DVD's to run on the old one or on my computer
screen.

Replies
4
Views
496
Replies
3
Views
415
Replies
15
Views
501
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
573