I don't know how good it is everywhere else in Australia, or around the world, but in my corner of regional Australia it SUCKS! I reckon we've been sold a bill of goods with this deal. Whose idea was it anyway and who benefits? Why do we have to spend money to replace a perfectly good analogue TV, which has far fewer problems with signal reception in rain – or strong wind – than this finnicky digital signal.
Whose Idea Was It Anyway?
It no longer really matters about who had this "brilliant" idea, though I’d like to be the one to tie them over the nearest convenient nest of bull ants! Sadly, the Feral Government of Australia picked up the idea and ran with it – in much the same way as they’ve handled everything else to date. Yes, the same government that already has a failure record that is so close to 100% on everything done to date that they’re continually spoken of in terms of outright incompetence. The same government that has, just now, brought in that big, new carbon tax for which there was no mandate from the electorate.
The same government that's hell-bent on delivering the so-called NBN – National Broadband Network. Can we really trust them to ever get anything right that actually gives John Citizen something needed and useful? And, importantly, deliver it without leaving him to pick up the bill?
Who Benefits?
This one seems to be easy to answer. The beneficiaries are free-to-air TV networks because they can add more TV channels, loaded with every tired old (i.e. up to 30+ years ago) soapie or sitcom that’s ever been seen before. And why would they want to serve up all that out-dated rubbish? The cynic in me believes it allows them more scope for advertising to increase their profits for next to no cost.
It seems that everyone wants OUR money without having to work for it. Perhaps they’ve been inspired by the profits made by our banks? At the same time, the old shows that shamelessly pollute our homes and lives are dumbing us down. Need evidence of this? Just sit through any of aforementioned soapies or sitcoms and try to find any relationship between them and the world of the 21st century.
For those who’ve seen the movie "Idiocracy", you'll instantly recognise how true that scenario is likely to be! For those who haven't seen it yet, find it, watch it and be appalled to realise that you’re looking at the future – for you AND, more especially, the generations to come. We are being taken for a ride and dumbed-down all at the same time, so we’re actually paying to be screwed over without even the afterglow of satisfaction from such an event.
What Was Wrong With The Analogue Signal?
Okay, no system is perfect and there were, occasionally, issues with reception of the analogue signal – but usually only in the sort of weather where one would turn off electrical appliances anyway. It might be argued, I suppose, that the Digital Signal isn't perfect either, but that would be the greatest understatement in the history of understatements!
Is the picture really all that much better than the analogue signal? In my experience, the answer is a loud and resounding NO! At present, I have 2 TVs – one digital HD and the other analogue. The latter is a portable set in my bedroom, with its own "bunny ears" antenna. The signal isn't always terrific, due to the indoor aerial, but it's watchable in all but extreme weather conditions.
I often have both TVs tuned to the same TV network at the same time. If I stand between the 2 sets, I clearly hear the sound coming through at different times. The sound always comes through first on the portable set, and takes between 4 and 5 seconds to come through on the HD TV. This is unsynchronised stereo, otherwise heard as a jumble of sounds that don't even vaguely resemble the English language.
I'm informed that this difference occurs because of all the extra information that is transmitted with the digital signal. On that basis, I have to ask – what is the benefit of this extra information and why do I need it? How come I need it now when, for all the years in which I’ve experienced analogue TV, I’ve neither had it nor needed it. If this extra information is furnished on the basis of “the public’s right to know”, then I have a right to know why I need it.
My message to the bright spark who dreamed up this poor excuse for a system is – if it isn't broken, it doesn't need to be fixed.
Oh yes, and I hear that future "enhancements" are to be made to the digital experience and that these are likely to require John Citizen to fork out even more money, in order to keep pace with the technology. If so, is this yet another source of advantage for someone, like retailers who are currently doing it tough or, at least, not yet making the same profits as banks?
If the digital signal is so much better for folks in the capital cities, I'm happy for them – let them pay for this rubbish! In my corner of regional Australia, it isn't delivering anything better than we have had to date, yet we still have to cough up money, perhaps on a continuing basis, for a system that is simply unreliable and, in my view, completely unnecessary.
Yet another reason to trust the Feral Government of Australia.
