Wait and see on digital TV

[NewsMan]

COMMUNICATIONS Minister Daryl Williams has failed to guarantee a public
inquiry process will be followed for the numerous statutory reviews of
digital free-to-air TV required before December.

Williams, who spoke via video conference at the Australian Broadcasting
Summit yesterday but who would not take questions, argued media regulation
needed to be flexible to meet the needs of the dynamic industry. But he only
confirmed the Government's existing stance on numerous media-related issues,
declining to provide further guidance.

The Government's digital TV legislation includes the reviews to enable
changes if the existing regulatory structure is not working. About 250,000
of a possible 7 million Australian homes have converted to free-to-air
digital TV despite the TV networks spending millions to upgrade to
digital.............


--
Details:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8995241%255E7582,00.html

More news:
http://www.auspaytv.com.au/forums/ipdl.php

***

Seeing a murder on television can help work off one's antagonisms. And if
you haven't any antagonisms, the commercials will give you some.
-- Alfred Hitchcock

[Chriz]

"NewsMan" <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:c3btjl$5a1$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> COMMUNICATIONS Minister Daryl Williams has failed to guarantee a public
> inquiry process will be followed for the numerous statutory reviews of
> digital free-to-air TV required before December.
>
> Williams, who spoke via video conference at the Australian Broadcasting
> Summit yesterday but who would not take questions, argued media regulation
> needed to be flexible to meet the needs of the dynamic industry. But he
only
> confirmed the Government's existing stance on numerous media-related
issues,
> declining to provide further guidance.
>
> The Government's digital TV legislation includes the reviews to enable
> changes if the existing regulatory structure is not working. About 250,000
> of a possible 7 million Australian homes have converted to free-to-air
> digital TV despite the TV networks spending millions to upgrade to
> digital.............

It'll catch on slowly. Australian's are just too lazy to get with digital
just yet.

On another topic digital pay tv has just come out (or is soon to come?). Now
I remember back in the early nineties, back when I was in primary school, we
watched BTN (Behind the News) and it had a report on pay TV. I remember them
talking about how you'll be able to go back and see some stuff that have
happened on the various TV channels and all this other promising stuff.
PayTV is only starting to be like that now. What's up with that? That's
about ten years ago. What took them so long to put their plans into force. I
knew it would take a while, but ten years (give or take a few) seems like a
long time to have been anticipating something. At that time I actually
thought it was coming out in a few years, but only now do we hear of Foxtel
digital. Anyway, sorry for this if it seemed like a rant.

--

"aouf" It's the new (edited) way of swearing
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aouf&f=1
This message is available in Dolby Analogue 1.0
Well, that's my 2 cents worth for today.
Damn you all top posters!

[The Family]

It took so long because most business models predicted major losses. They
weren't wrong and, surprise surprise, investors don't actually enjoy the
prospect of losing money.

It's only now, after Rupert took an enormous punt in the UK and actually
started generating strong positive cash flows, that people such as News
Limited have enough confidence to try and replicate a model that is
successful in the UK here.

The risks are still pretty substantial.


"Chriz" <chrizizhere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3bvhk$25ii4f$1@ID-207118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "NewsMan" <cocopops@nospam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:c3btjl$5a1$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> > COMMUNICATIONS Minister Daryl Williams has failed to guarantee a public
> > inquiry process will be followed for the numerous statutory reviews of
> > digital free-to-air TV required before December.
> >
> > Williams, who spoke via video conference at the Australian Broadcasting
> > Summit yesterday but who would not take questions, argued media
regulation
> > needed to be flexible to meet the needs of the dynamic industry. But he
> only
> > confirmed the Government's existing stance on numerous media-related
> issues,
> > declining to provide further guidance.
> >
> > The Government's digital TV legislation includes the reviews to enable
> > changes if the existing regulatory structure is not working. About
250,000
> > of a possible 7 million Australian homes have converted to free-to-air
> > digital TV despite the TV networks spending millions to upgrade to
> > digital.............
>
> It'll catch on slowly. Australian's are just too lazy to get with digital
> just yet.
>
> On another topic digital pay tv has just come out (or is soon to come?).
Now
> I remember back in the early nineties, back when I was in primary school,
we
> watched BTN (Behind the News) and it had a report on pay TV. I remember
them
> talking about how you'll be able to go back and see some stuff that have
> happened on the various TV channels and all this other promising stuff.
> PayTV is only starting to be like that now. What's up with that? That's
> about ten years ago. What took them so long to put their plans into force.
I
> knew it would take a while, but ten years (give or take a few) seems like
a
> long time to have been anticipating something. At that time I actually
> thought it was coming out in a few years, but only now do we hear of
Foxtel
> digital. Anyway, sorry for this if it seemed like a rant.
>
> --
>
> "aouf" It's the new (edited) way of swearing
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aouf&f=1
> This message is available in Dolby Analogue 1.0
> Well, that's my 2 cents worth for today.
> Damn you all top posters!
>
>

[danfan]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:50:14 +1030, "The Family"
<someone@somewhere.com> wrote:

>It took so long because most business models predicted major losses. They
>weren't wrong and, surprise surprise, investors don't actually enjoy the
>prospect of losing money.
>
>It's only now, after Rupert took an enormous punt in the UK and actually
>started generating strong positive cash flows, that people such as News
>Limited have enough confidence to try and replicate a model that is
>successful in the UK here.
>
>The risks are still pretty substantial.

Although somehat mitigated by their (News Ltd)'s ability to roll out
in Australia with the same UK interactivity, but without having to
incur more R&D costs.

Is there anywhere globally that has exploited the potential for dgital
interactive TV better than the UK?

[B Forbes]

"Chriz" <chrizizhere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3bvhk$25ii4f$1@ID-207118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> It'll catch on slowly. Australian's are just too lazy to get with digital
> just yet.
>

Speaking for myself and anyone with a clue, I have no interest in
forking out for circuitry that oughta be in the TV in the first place.

[Hazzard]

"B Forbes" <Chocolate@Caramel.com.au> wrote in message
news:4059ae64$0$16496$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Chriz" <chrizizhere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c3bvhk$25ii4f$1@ID-207118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > It'll catch on slowly. Australian's are just too lazy to get with
digital
> > just yet.
> >
>
> Speaking for myself and anyone with a clue, I have no interest in
> forking out for circuitry that oughta be in the TV in the first place.
>

Well, get a job and you may be able to afford it. I agree it outta be in the
display, but it aint. Bad luck.

[Chriz]

"Hazzard" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:405a5748$0$22522$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...
>
> "B Forbes" <Chocolate@Caramel.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4059ae64$0$16496$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> >
> > "Chriz" <chrizizhere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c3bvhk$25ii4f$1@ID-207118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > It'll catch on slowly. Australian's are just too lazy to get with
> digital
> > > just yet.
> > >
> >
> > Speaking for myself and anyone with a clue, I have no interest in
> > forking out for circuitry that oughta be in the TV in the first place.
> >
>
> Well, get a job and you may be able to afford it. I agree it outta be in
the
> display, but it aint. Bad luck.

But if you want it to be the TV there are new models out there that have
their own digital reciver within, but if you have an old TV and don't plan
on buying a new one, then a box is a better idea.

--

"aouf" It's the new (edited) way of swearing
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aouf&f=1
This message is available in Dolby Analogue 1.0
Well, that's my 2 cents worth for today.
Damn you all top posters!

[B Forbes]

"Chriz" <chrizizhere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3el71$26415h$1@ID-207118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> But if you want it to be the TV there are new models out there that have
> their own digital reciver within, but if you have an old TV and don't plan
> on buying a new one, then a box is a better idea.
>

Sure. Any idea if the newer TVs have an output for digital sound? Or the
old ones for that matter.