VAST and third party recievers

[gordon_s1942]

Croady, I totaly understand and agree with you that ANYTHING is better than nothing.
For over 40 years our TV reception where I live has ranged from nothing to occassionaly (10% of the time) terrific which is why I signed up for Austar origonaly.
It was only through the very appreciated efforts of MTV I was able to lock onto the local digital translator which has its moments of drop-outs but its better than before which is why I am critical of the introduction of 3D and even HD as I would rather see the service up and running and then add all the 'Goodie' bits.
I am in an area that changes over from next January (2012) after which I can obtain a VAST stb because of no available terrestial transmissions but I wasnt waiting so I have 'Jumped' the gun.
The 'Powers that be' think that what you dont know about, you can do without and you can wait untill 'Their' ready to present it to you on a Silver Platter with a nice ribbon BUT you do know about it and dont give a damn about the presentation, just get up and running.
Hopefully by the time they get their heads out of their arses it will be the best there is and SOON !!!!

[efab]

unfortunately gordon they will never get their heads out of their arses, because we are talking about politicians

[Tassie Devil]

The issues raised need serious debate. Please add your 3c.

Tassie,

You are still missing the point about advertising.

Take for example up here on the Mid North coast.

We have three transmitters .Middle brother ,which covers Port Mc Quarie and surroundings,200Km north is Mt Moombil that covers all around Coffs Harbour and 200Km north again is Mt Nardi which covers all around Byron Bay.

Take Prime , they have DIFFERENT commercials on all of these transmitters.Consider how many different Commercials targeting small pockets across the whole Prime network are required to run a viable TV channel .

Vast DOES NOT have all these little pocket areas available .There is one feed for the whole of the East coast.It has ONE LOT OF ADDS for everyone .Not enough revenue to viably run a TV channel.

If all these pocket areas were available and the STB could only pick up the local feed,then it would all work financially and we would not need all this encryption and bollacks we have .

Why would I want to advertise my restaurant ( for example) on my local Prime TV if I knew that that many viewers couldn't see it because they were watching other adds on there VAST TV.
I would not want to pay so much or even not advertise at all .

Sure VAST Viewers are the minority but if the system was not controlled then more would use it and the loss of revenue situation would escalate and risk viability of TV station

Bellotv

REPLY:
Bellotv you raise valid points that need to be debated and the more debate there is, the better the likely result.

Consider these scenarios:

1. Someone in e.g. Brisbane, is receiving good terrestrial reception. There is absolutely no reason for him/her to go to the expense and inconvenience of getting a satellite dish so he/she can view broadcasts from somewhere else in Australia. If that terrestrial signal is reliable then it will be a better proposition than VAST anyway as we all know satellite reception can drop off in heavy rain. So a freely available VAST will make no difference to the potential audience for commercial advertisers in that city.

2. Someone in Brisbane is in a black spot and has access to any VAST channel anywhere in Australia. So is he/she likely to want to tune into an Adelaide broadcast to see their news and local advertising? I think not. The only few who might do this could be people who once lived in Adelaide and have moved to Brisbane so are interested from time to time in what is happening "back home". But even these people would be primarily interested in the Brisbane news and advertising so would select the Brisbane broadcasts.
The above argument applies to anyone using VAST in a remote area or in one of the "pockets" described in the post. They will be interested in news and advertising closest to home so will be a valid statistic for advertisers in that area and are unlikely to tune into TV designed for a nearby "pocket". As an advertiser you will place ads with the local TV outlet and can confidently expect all residents in your area will be seeing it either by terrestrial (and that would be 99% of viewers in most cases) or VAST (a statistically insignificant audience for advertisers in most situations).

My guess is that given the choice, commercial TV would not bother with non terrestrial viewers at all as they are not likely to be a source of significant revenue from advertising. However the Government is forcing them to be a part of VAST with the unfortunate byproduct the bureaucracy sees an opportunity to expand its numbers by putting controls on VAST which will need a lot of administration + some manufacturer(s) can see a chance to make good profits from a captive audience using a heavily encrypted card system.

Have I answered the concerns raised or is something being missed or misinterpreted?

John

[viewer]

One of the biggest problems is that of sport that is shown on satellite tv.

Everything is good, until that raises it's head.

In these scenarios, people go to VAST because the likelyhood is, that the game that is being shown on satellite, is not on their local terrestrial station.

In the past, pubs etc would install a satellite system, and use it to show the game in the pub, and get additional customers at their bars etc, increasing their income.This unscrupulous behaviour then dictates something has to be done by the broadcasters.

The terrestrial broadcasters pay significant fees to AFL, NRL etc for these rights, and naturally do not want that game shown on another environment, that infringes on their exclusive rights. Neither does the rights holder (AFL, NRL ) want to miss out on payment, via the form of advertising loss, in any way.

This is one of the main bug-bares, and one that is difficult to overcome without encryption, or some sort of regulation.

As much as I believe it is too hard to get VAST, and something needs to "give", until you can provide a regime that ensures the integrity of the broadcasters and rights holders, an lock out unauthorised use of the broadcast, this arguement will never end.

In reality, why do you think there was the prolific use of gold cards and the like for Aurora? I think if a legitimate poll was ever done, working out whom was viewing Aurora with both authentic and dodgy cards, I still think the majority of those persons get good terrestrial fta, and use of the Aurora system is for timeshift recording capabilities, or for accessing the sport alternative that the local broadcaster may not be showing? Lot's of people either used false addresses, or cloned their Irdeto 1 cards and shared them around.

So, I think we can argue till the cows come home about what is fair or unfair from our own perspectives, but up until you can come up with a workable alternative that satisfies the business world of tv, then we will get no change to the existing policy.

My belief is that their should be an equal choice of either erecting a terrestrial antenna or a satellite dish, and you choose what is best for you, and they both have the same content. I think their could be 3 or 4 different satellite zones made to suit different time zones, and the main capital city feed put up for all channels on that timezone, but with ads inserted that are all generic, with no local content at all ( ie car ads, cornflakes, toothpaste, funeral plans etc) thus not impinging on local content. I do not believe that those people that don't need to would go to satellite, as that expense is too great for them, but at least those that had no choice, would have an alternative.

Anyhow, thats my diatribe...doesn't answer everything, but I think displays a couple of the sides of the story?

[Tassie Devil]

OK, I accept that as a valid argument but do we have it in context?

Is the present Draconian & expensive (both to individuals and the Government) VAST system really needed because a few people who have satellite gear commit the sin of looking at sport outside their allotted area?

It would be simple to legislate against pubs and other public meeting places showing these events without a special licence. In fact this would benefit the commercial stations as licence fees from pubs etc would increase their revenue and offer a few jobs to those in the bureaucracy.

So what I'm saying is it really necessary to penalise all VAST users because of a few who might look at sport outside their area?

Let the debate continue :-)

John

[viewer]

I agree... the genuine VAST user is being penalised for suspected unrightful viewing

In regard to non answers on the dtv forum, may I point out that alanh views are not the views of everyone on that forum, and quite often, there are lengthy debates over some of his comments...and not all agree with his standpoints.

[Tassie Devil]

I agree... the genuine VAST user is being penalised for suspected unrightful viewing

In regard to non answers on the dtv forum, may I point out that alanh views are not the views of everyone on that forum, and quite often, there are lengthy debates over some of his comments...and not all agree with his standpoints.

Yes I can see that about alanh but his interest in DTV is appreciated. I suspect he could be in the bureaucracy that is administering VAST although that is unimportant. What is important is forAlan & others to raise arguments in favour of VAST so we can see where the thinking about its present structure is coming from. If we do not understand this we cannot present valid arguments for change.

And folks, that change will not occur unless you all make a fuss with your local MP, harass the Minister or whoever you think has a finger in this messy VAST pie. Please do not rely on just a couple of us making a fuss and achieving anything. Maybe a letter or two to your local paper would help. The Pollies are very sensitive to negative public comment.

Here is a sample for you to lift and alter to your local circumstances:

Dear Sir

The promise of digital TV is an exciting one and an easy one for those who are in the fortunate position of being able to view terrestrially by aerial. Not so easy for us in black spot and remote areas is the prospect of digital TV via the VAST satellite system.
Not only do we have to run the gamut of a Government bureaucracy to get permission to access it, but then find we have to purchase expensive digital receivers that will only function with one particular encrypted card. This card will function in only one receiver - a ridiculous and expensive situation.
Further there is little choice of suitable receivers as it appears only 3 companies are allowed to supply them, a most uncompetitive situation which encourages prices many times that of the equivalent terrestrial gear.
It is time the Government had a rethink about the VAST structure and I appeal to our local member to take an interest in this. Those living in remote areas have enough extra living costs without the avoidable ones associated with TV via satellite.
The Government offer to subsidise some of us for the VAST service is not the answer. The spotlight needs to be shone on the large bureaucracy around VAST, who is making commercial benefit from it and finally on the excessive entry price to the consumer.

Yours ......

John

[Tassie Devil]

There is a further interchange between myself and a guy on DTV. Rather than waste bandwidth here, have a look at this:


John

[Tassie Devil]

Confession - I've been away from this site for a bit debating about VAST on the DTV site and have come to a conclusion about what is going on.

There are 3 parties who benefit to a bigger or lesser extent because of card encryption:

1. The bureaucracy - more people required -> bigger department -> more opportunities for promotion etc etc
MY PRESENT APPRAISAL: Yes maybe not opposing it and do welcome it but not a driving force behind it

2. Impaja and Southern Cross because of control over there viewing audience
MY PRESENT APPRAISAL: It is hard to see what financial or other benefit they would achieve with the potential audience of 270,000 max spread over such a wide area, none of the pockets of VAST viewers would offer a big enough audience to attract worthwhile advertising revenue

3. Commercial interests involved in the card encryption and receiver manufacture.
MY PRESENT APPRAISAL: This is where we will find the culprit responsible with its messy finger in the pie. This conclusion is backed up by the following information just given to me anonymously

My main objection is with Altech UEC's exclusivity in the market. I've also written to the ACCC regarding the situation and I'd thought I'd let you know my experiences.

When I first asked the ACCC as to why the UEC was the only government approved STB they said if its a government decision, then it's not covered by the ACCC!This was alarming enough! But to double check I went back to the digitalready crowd (the DBCDE) asking them who made the decision for Altech UEC to be the exclusive STB supplier. They told be it was a 'commercial decision' between Optus and the broadcasters. So I went to the myvast.com.au (being the broadcasters) crowd and ask them then same questions, they pointed the finger at Optus. I asked Optus but have yet to receive a reply.

I'd prefer to keep my position and who I work for anonymous, but I can tell you we've been in contact with 2 reputable STB manufacturers, both of who are interested in making a VAST STB. Both have had meetings with Optus, only to be told they won't be considered until Jan2011. That was later pushed back until March and now pushed back again until April! I don't think it would be a stretch of the imagination to say that there is some form of collusion between Optus and Altech UEC to leave this period of exclusivity for as long as they can.

We've heard from one manufacturer that only 2 other manufacturers (apart from UEC) are being considered. If Optus keep delaying the approval of other boxes, it will leave too little of the pie left to interest any other manufacturers. Leaving UEC as potentially the sole supplier. The manufacturers aren't prepared to rock the boat and jeopardize their approval and after all they've got bigger fish to fry in the international market.

So I've written to the ACCC to explain the situation between Optus and Altech UEC with the evidence I've got. I also made an application under the Freedom of Information Act for any documentation relating to Optus & UEC and the government, but the search fee for that has come back at $1300!

I now intend to pass the above on to some relevant politicians, and that includes the Minister - I still have not had any answers to my original questions, answers which were promised 3 weeks ago.

John

[Farmsky]

Thanks Tassie,

Point 3 is in accord with my own . Points 1 and 2 as you indicate, are largely irrelevant.

If there is collusion (which would appear undeniable); then there really is a chance to blow this thing wide open.

Historically Optus Aurora followed the same exact same path.

As far as I remember, Optus only ever approved UEC STB's for Aurora, however without card to box marriage, other options surfaced.

Their Aurora stance 'appears' a little softer.



UEC 'fixed' it, this time 'round.

[Tassie Devil]

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity

Sir

In mid February I contacted you about concerns I have about the administration of the VAST satellite service. At around the same time I contacted both the DBCDE and ACMA with the following questions:
1. Why your department has determined that cards are necessary to receive VAST services when dealing with FTA services
2. Why the cards are so heavily encrypted
3. Why it is necessary to restrict the card to be used in one and only one satellite receiver
4. Why those of us wishing to use VAST are being restricted in choice to only one of three brands
5. Why have you set up a system that stops me from using my present satellite equipment to receive VAST and will involve me and others in considerable and unnecessary extra expense
6. What is the justification for setting up this complex card system requiring administrative costs, extra expense to the Government who are to subsidise some individuals, and extra expense to individuals like myself who already have otherwise suitable satellite equipment.

After some bouncing around between these two departments I finally did get a call from a nice lady at DBCDE but she was unable to give me satisfactory answers to the above questions so i asked her to please put down her point of view on paper. However she declined to do that but said she would get in touch with ACMA to respond.

A further complaint to DBCDE sponsored another promise that the questions would be answered by ACMA. To date this still has not happened.

A number of us have been discussing the situation and below are my present feelings.

There are 3 parties who benefit to a bigger or lesser extent because of card encryption for VAST receivers:

1. The bureaucracy - more people required -> bigger department -> more opportunities for promotion etc etc
MY PRESENT APPRAISAL: Yes maybe not opposing it and do welcome it but not a driving force behind it

2. Impaja and Southern Cross because of control over there viewing audience
MY PRESENT APPRAISAL: It is hard to see what financial or other benefit they would achieve with the potential audience of 270,000 max spread over such a wide area, none of the pockets of VAST viewers would offer a big enough audience to attract worthwhile advertising revenue

3. Commercial interests involved in the card encryption and receiver manufacture.
MY PRESENT APPRAISAL: This is where we will find the culprit responsible with its messy finger in the pie. This conclusion is backed up by the following information just given to me anonymously

My main objection is with Altech UEC's exclusivity in the market. I've also written to the ACCC regarding the situation and I'd thought I'd let you know my experiences.

When I first asked the ACCC as to why the UEC was the only government approved STB they said if its a government decision, then it's not covered by the ACCC!This was alarming enough! But to double check I went back to the digitalready crowd (the DBCDE) asking them who made the decision for Altech UEC to be the exclusive STB supplier. They told be it was a 'commercial decision' between Optus and the broadcasters. So I went to the myvast.com.au (being the broadcasters) crowd and ask them then same questions, they pointed the finger at Optus. I asked Optus but have yet to receive a reply.

I'd prefer to keep my position and who I work for anonymous, but I can tell you we've been in contact with 2 reputable STB manufacturers, both of who are interested in making a VAST STB. Both have had meetings with Optus, only to be told they won't be considered until Jan2011. That was later pushed back until March and now pushed back again until April! I don't think it would be a stretch of the imagination to say that there is some form of collusion between Optus and Altech UEC to leave this period of exclusivity for as long as they can.

We've heard from one manufacturer that only 2 other manufacturers (apart from UEC) are being considered. If Optus keep delaying the approval of other boxes, it will leave too little of the pie left to interest any other manufacturers. Leaving UEC as potentially the sole supplier. The manufacturers aren't prepared to rock the boat and jeopardize their approval and after all they've got bigger fish to fry in the international market.

So I've written to the ACCC to explain the situation between Optus and Altech UEC with the evidence I've got. I also made an application under the Freedom of Information Act for any documentation relating to Optus & UEC and the government, but the search fee for that has come back at $1300!

Minister, there is a hint of corruption involved in the VAST system, something I'm sure you wish to avoid. I therefore respectfully request you look into the present administration and take appropriate steps to alter the way VAST is presently set up so it does truly become a "free to air" TV available to anyone.
A number of us are VERY concerned at the present structure which is not only anti competitive, but will cost both the Government (in subsidies) and individuals much more than is either necessary or warranted. KISS (keep it simple, stupid) is by far the best course of action. The whole VAST structure needs an overhaul and change.
I look forward to your response

Sincerely

[markfs]

Why don't you get an online petition going to protest

[B52]

Your punishment for voting Labor/Green coalition. I challenge you to name just one scheme which labor got right.

[gordon_s1942]

I dont want to start a political debate but because these kind of programs arent just formulated 'Over Night', I wouldnt be very surprised to find that the orgional proposal for VAST doesnt goes back to the defunct Howard/Costello Liberal Government.

[Tassie Devil]

Why don't you get an online petition going to protest

Not a bad idea, but I really think that lobbying the pollies (and that means ALL of you) would be more effective.

Pity we cannot get the media interested.

John

POSTSCRIPT: I'll have another shot at 4 corners

[Farmsky]

I agree that petitions without teeth or real purpose go ... nowhere.



Need the direct blow torch to the belly ...

[mkhannah]

Watch apac channel now - turnball on acma.

[Tassie Devil]

Watch apac channel now - turnball on acma.

Please let us know what he said - I'm no longer an Austar subscriber.

John

[mkhannah]

There was a few mp's in the debate and basically the libs made the following points in no real order (it went backwards and forwards) - vast subsidies in more small towns should be pooled for terrestrial retransmission rather than go to individuals, greater subsidies need to go to businesses like motels, hospitals etc, subsidy was crap as it only goes to 1 box per house, vast was too expensive.
I don't think that anything was mentioned re uec boxes and/or cards encryption etc.
I got the distinct impression that the libs will be going on about this a little more anyway, probably bring out a few new arguements each time especially in the bush where the Nats went to the other side.
I was working while it was on so don't quote me on every detail
On the scrolling at the bottom of the screen is says apac is online, I don't know if you can find the debate online but it may be worth a look.

[Tassie Devil]

There was a few mp's in the debate and basically the libs made the following points in no real order (it went backwards and forwards) - vast subsidies in more small towns should be pooled for terrestrial retransmission rather than go to individuals, greater subsidies need to go to businesses like motels, hospitals etc, subsidy was crap as it only goes to 1 box per house, vast was too expensive.
I don't think that anything was mentioned re uec boxes and/or cards encryption etc.
I got the distinct impression that the libs will be going on about this a little more anyway, probably bring out a few new arguements each time especially in the bush where the Nats went to the other side.
I was working while it was on so don't quote me on every detail
On the scrolling at the bottom of the screen is says apac is online, I don't know if you can find the debate online but it may be worth a look.

Just had a look. Yes there is an online site but it is aimed at schools with supportive material relating to topics raised. I could not find a link for their videos despite downloading the plug in they tout.

John