I'm no great fan of Austar as I recently canceled my subscription, but they have a VERY valid point - much the same as the one we have. Why should anyone who subscribes to satellite TV and pays for it, not have FREE access to FTA TV. The "F" in the FTA is looking more and more ridiculous.Originally Posted by viewer
John
Having trouble configuring the remote to control the cat
Re 'AUSTAR have a valid point' - but it is commercial. If I lived in a blackspot all I would have is Austar. If I can access VAST would I need/want to pay Austar when I can now view 23+ channels? Your link to the acma.gov.au suggests that they want it both ways. Viewers will have to erect another dish unless you allow 'us' to transmit VAST.
I see your point, however a subscriber that wants both would be better off with a dual Austar/VAST receiver.
Tiny (17-03-11)
I tend to agree with the above that Austar could be looking at a definate loss of customers to VAST and those customers would be using THEIR dish etc to receive it.
It would be extremely good business for Austar to be able to incorporate VAST into their system particularly if their advertising doesnt present the fact that you could receive VAST without having to have Austar.
Like most business's, some of Austars past advertising has handled the truth fairly carelessly.
I do wonder that Austar didnt raise those matters much earlier or were they like us treated like the mythical Mushroom, Kept in the Dark and covered in Bullshit.
I wouldnt mind betting that if you ask either Austar direct or a Kiosk they will tell you that VAST wont work on their (Austar) dish at all, end of story.
This is correct as it stands but the real answer not given because you didnt ask is that with modification, it will as we well know.
None of the above will apply to anyone who has Aurora and/or Austar now as they have to change Aurora over anyway in 2 or 3 years time.
Last edited by gordon_s1942; 17-03-11 at 09:33 AM.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say, I just dont ever remember saying it !!
Smacca (17-03-11)
Wow wouldn't that have made a difference if Austar had access to VAST
As a user of both, would have saved me $300 & more if I didn't already have a spare dish.
Can only hope that Foxtel have more clout than Austar after they take it over & get access to VAST.
Won't hold my breath though, UEC & or the FreeTV Australia group will probably block it from happening at our expense.
Cheers, Tiny
"You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
The information is out there; you just have to let it in."
Here is something on the issue lifted from the DTV site
A guy posted up reasons for the encrypted cards. Below is his post and my replies to the points he made. Please add in your own as the more heads thinking about this and contributing, the better.
VAST provides two independent sets of SD signals one for Qld, NT and the other for SE, ie NSW, Vic, Tas & SA. HD programs are feeding the whole Eastern States. VAST is yet to start in WA.
Advertising in VAST is paying for program purchase and the costs of feeding the satelllite. The DBCDE is paying for satellite use. The viewer pays for the satellite TV receiver and TV set.
This is where I lose comprehension. Satellite feeds around the country are already by satellite so are the costs of providing a feed for VAST excessive and somehow have to be recouped?
This is the part I find completely unacceptable. If I interpret you correctly you mean that anyone using VAST has to effectively cover the cost of Impaja and Southern Cross satellite feeds by being registered so the advertisers can be appropriately charged. So are special broadcasting licences being given ONLY for VAST services? If so, the legislation needs to be reviewed as the population which used VAST is minute compared to the terrestrial audience. My understanding was that their terrestrial licence required them to provide services for VAST, the cost of which would be borne by the Government. Regardless, e.g. the East Coast population is well documented, surveys on viewing habits taken with the advertisers duly charged so where is the importance of knowing if that audience is looking at channel 10 via terrestrial or VAST?The purchase price for programs is calculated partly by the population of the licence area. The remote Eastern/Central licence area the licencees are Imparja and Southern Cross Broadcasting along with their joint venture company to show the 7 network programs. So these companies have to sell advertising time, the revenue from this will pay for the programs and the costs of feeding them to the satellite uplink.
You are currently in the population count for Tasmanian Licence area. You presence is part of the costing for programming for Southern Cross Broadcasting, WIN and their joint venture company to transmit 7 network programs. So if you and others go to VAST they have to pay extra for their programming. In addition SCB and WIN also have to pay for the transmitters on Mt Barrow, feeding and play out equipment.
The price advertisers are prepared to pay depends on the number of actual viewers. The number of actual viewers is the population of the licence area. multiplied by the ratings of the program.
This whole encryption system is totally unecessary. It is creating another big bureaucracy, it is making it difficult for some people to access (there are people employed to review rejected applications), it has been structured in a non competitive way with only 3 manufacturers "blessed" with permission to offer equipment, it is a scam that each receiver requires its own encrypted card and that card will not work in any other receiver (good for extra staff required in the bureaucracy & very good for those 3 manufacturers) -> bottom line a lot of hassle and extra (unecessary) expense to consumers who want to use VAST.The reason why encryption is used is that VAST broadcasters can know exactly how many viewers they have outside of their licence area. This number can be added to their licence area population. It will also mean that the affected terrestrial broadcasters will have to subtract these VAST viewers from their potential viewers. If they don't do this advertisers will start complaining.
VAST is not pay TV where a subsciption is used to pay the program costs and distribution costs.
Why cannot the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle be applied? The Government is covering the cost of the satellite use, so let the signals be freely available to anyone who wishes to buy the appropriate gear. Many of us have it already and are irate that commercial interests are forcing us to pay an excessive price to access something which is much less expensive to the bulk of Australians.
EDIT POSTSCRIPT: I have just sent an email to Turnbull on the above.
Last edited by Tassie Devil; 17-03-11 at 11:23 AM. Reason: typos
Having trouble configuring the remote to control the cat
I do not watch enough TV to have noticed this before and had to endure 15 minutes of Dr Phil to find out. This applies only to SX as I have not checked out other stations and applies only to this time slot. The adverts on terrestrial TV were for local products and services. The commercial breaks on satellite comprised pictures of old buildings. So the advertisers would be losing out to a smaller audience and therefore switching to VASTwould matter to them.
Commercials via VAST
BUT AFAIK, when VAST is fully set up, people in say Tasmania, will see all the Tasmanian broadcasts and that will include all the ads for this State. Under my suggestions any of the VAST services would be available so one could look at the broadcasts from other States. But would any one bother? Surely one looks at local broadcasts to see local news and maybe ads (although I skip through them and you can bet your bottom dollar none of the new VAST recorders would have a skip button). So advertising rates are based on say the Tassie population and it does not matter if the FTA TV is via terrestrial or satellite.
Please correct me if this concept is wrong.
BTW I've had no response yet from that item on the DTV site described above.
John
Having trouble configuring the remote to control the cat
Are what you're trying to say is that you want Tassie local channels to be available to everyone in Tassie, complete with local adds? (sounds good, nothing wrong with that, bring it on). But, if this was to be so, surely this will increase the bandwidth and transponders required to include the extra channels. With Tassie being so small, what then would be the case for other areas like SA, QLD, NSW, VIC and WA, where there are a number of regional stations as well. What channels would be broadcast then to those areas... close down regional and only have capital cities, or have current regional channels but with the extra channels 7Two, Gem, Go... being capital city based.
Then, allow the viewing of content from other states; wouldn't this create issues with broadcasting rights and licenced areas.
Having those choices, surely the terrestrial viewers would kick up a stink, as they would be restricted to what is only broadcast locally.
Believe me, I am all for this. And I know the sports fans would love those choices by not having to wait up all hours to see their preferred league play, if it's played at all.
Whatever the case, VAST seems to be a rush job, as there are numerous issues and problems that we all know of, and have been mentioned many times within the forums.
I'm by no means having a go at you, as you have certainly proved your worth many times over; hence all the support and thanks you are receiving. I just think that if you start mentioning about those points above, then include advertising too, you will confuse the hell out of all departments and MP's. And it obviously doesn't take much; hence the mess vast is in, and all the buck passing and brickwalls you have experienced when trying to seek answers.
What you mentioned previously was KISS. Keeping It Simple talking to these Stupid buckpassing departments. By using this method, I think the focus should be on the problems what you have raised previously and pasted below, and maybe, just maybe, things will turn in our favour to view what is supposedly FTA.
I too am at a loss trying to comprehend this unnecessary heavy handed restrictions they are placing on viewers, just to receive FTA.
Last edited by Xplorer; 17-03-11 at 07:57 PM. Reason: silly me, should have spell checked :)
It does make a very interesting read. Hmmm
Tasman, That 'Old Building' loop was broadcast here on the 'New' Digital Terrestial channels for many weeks as things were sorted out, now we get normal commercials as we did on analog.
I dont doubt this 'Loop' will eventualy be replaced on VAST by standard advertising.
But currently what advertising we are seeing in NSW is similar to that on Aurora and is for places over a far bigger area of the state plus those Interstate.
I certainly am not driving over 1000 kms to Alice Springs to save 5 cents on a kilo of magerine.
My big bugbear presently is the nightly news (5pm NSW) appears so far to be totaly Victorian based.
Last edited by gordon_s1942; 18-03-11 at 10:27 AM.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say
It would be good business for Austar to access to VAST as Austar doesnt care what you watch so long as they get paid (stb rental) by you to see it.
As for the 'Channels' using the data regarding both their 'Known' coverage areas and that of VAST users makes sense when you realise that adverts are seen on all channels.
They cannot say who exactly watches what without a survey but they do know how many COULD be watching when they set the fees for advertising time.
Like 'FREE' newspapers, they claim to cover a given area and are delived to so many homes in that area to drum up advertisers to that publication.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say
Here's some more "ammunition" for you "Tassie", backing up your words that satellite delivery is dearer for the end user.
Current Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill could see the digital dividend wasted, digital transmission provider Broadcast Australia says
Tim Lohman (Computerworld)15 March, 2011 16:59Comments.Broadcast Australia has called on the Federal Government to reconsider the costs involved in moving towns and communities onto satellite-based delivery of digital television signals.
Speaking at a Senate Committee into the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2010, Broadcast Australia chief executive, Graeme Barclay, said satellite-based services should be kept to a minimum.
“The public policy intent and impact [of the measures of the bill] appears to be based on the view that whether a home converts to digital TV through direct-to-home by satellite means or through digital television reception is a matter of little concern to the viewer,” he said.
“We submit that there is a big difference. We believe because it is both more costly and less convenient to receive signals via satellite than terrestrial reception, means that public policy should be directed at achieving a more appropriate balance between terrestrial and satellite deliver of digital television.”
Broadcast Australia provides managed analogue and digital transmission services for television and analogue radio to organisations such as SBS and the ABC.
According to Barclay, satellite-based delivery of digital television was more appropriate for smaller communities, where terrestrial-based services were economically unfeasible.
However, for areas covered by terrestrial signal, homeowners faced a significant cost if forced onto satellite-based services as the sole source of digital television.
“There are real and important consequences for consumers who are compelled to adopt satellite-based TV reception,” Barclay said.
"Even with access to the government’s satellite subsidy scheme, households with a number of TVs and recording devices will incur an increased private cost of digital TV conversion exceeding $1000 on terrestrial coverage.”
Further commenting on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment, Barclay said the ‘digital dividend’ left from the cessation of analogue television broadcasting had the power to reshape broadcast and mobile broadband spectrum in Australia.
“In our view, the idea that the basic objectives for this once in a generation spectrum planning process are not set out in the legislation is peculiar,” he said.
“Based on the policy settings we have seen so far in relation to the digital dividend, our view is that is that sub-optimal spectrum outcomes will result with direct consequences for the future rollout of digital radio and further innovative free to air TV channels to regional markets and next generation digital terrestrial services to everywhere in Australia.”
“We submit that there is a big difference. We believe because it is both more costly and less convenient to receive signals via satellite than terrestrial reception, means that public policy should be directed at achieving a more appropriate balance between terrestrial and satellite deliver of digital television.”
WOW, thats an Earth Shattering statement if I ever saw one !!
Terrestial: One TV with digital HD tuner $400 plus antenna and cable $60 =$460 and you can add as many TV's within reason to that single antenna.
VAST: One TV now with useless HD tuner is still $400, One dish etc $200 and now the cruncher, $270 for the STB makes that $870,almost double.
THEN if you want more than one TV for others to watch different channels at the same time, then add $270 for EVERY other TV or Recording device in the house.
The only good news is that ONE dish can again within reason service more than one STB.
Note I have only made a damn rough estimate of any incidental costs but I dont think I am too far out.
But these kind of statements are very bland and rubbery and dont consider what it would cost to set up a Terrestial transmitter, who would pay for it and what coverage area it would have.
I am not suggesting this current version of VAST is the only and best solution but delivery by satellite guarantees a total OZ wide coverage as compared to terrestial transmitters.
Last edited by gordon_s1942; 18-03-11 at 03:14 PM.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say
works fine with foxit....
I believed this was the part for Tassie to lift....
"However, for areas covered by terrestrial signal, homeowners faced a significant cost if forced onto satellite-based services as the sole source of digital television.
“There are real and important consequences for consumers who are compelled to adopt satellite-based TV reception,” Barclay said.
"Even with access to the government’s satellite subsidy scheme, households with a number of TVs and recording devices will incur an increased private cost of digital TV conversion exceeding $1000 on terrestrial coverage.”
My thoughts were that the comment shares his words on additional cost associated with satellite receivers.
Good points guys.
Interesting the guy on DTV never did reply to the points I raised.
If I do not get the promised written answer to my questions in the next few days I'll complain bitterly to the Minister and send a copy to Turnbull. Unless we keep hassling them nothing is ever likely to change. In our favor the present VAST set up is so crazy it is indefensible, although I guess they will try to justify it. However no one has tried very hard so far.
John
Having trouble configuring the remote to control the cat
sat 49 (18-03-11)
and whats even worse the west is still without
Geez efab, give 'em time as us in the East are still fanning the fires of Hell under them on an almost daily basis without you Western lot joining the parade.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say
bodgie (19-03-11)
Gordon the concern on the east coast about the receiver issue is honorable but at least you have a signal. Personally the receiver issues runs a distant second to the fact that we don't even have a signal here in the west. I guess I am a horse before the cart type person and would dearly love a signal before I argue the issue of what type of box I prefer.
Croady
bodgie (19-03-11)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks