[LINK] digital TV conversion - psychology of the consumer

[Richard Chirgwin]

Howard Lowndes wrote:
>
>
> Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> Craig Sanders wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> So the price is immaterial. I don't see the STB as too expensive, 
>>>> it's just that there's other stuff to do; so why bother? Why would 
>>>> I give money to someone for a product I don't want?
>>>>     
>>>
>>> because you want to be able to continue using the TV set you bought 
>>> after the
>>> analog signal is discontinued?
>>>   
>> ...Indeed. And that will be the sole reason for doing so.
>>
>> But get this: if the digitisation turns out to be an utter disaster, 
>> if it has to be delayed because not enough people care, then doesn't 
>> it cast the policy itself into doubt? The policy, it should be 
>> remembered, was not in any way a response to citizen demand. It's a 
>> "for your own good" policy.
>
> No Richard, digitisation does have benefits, 
...but those benefits accrue to the TV stations, to people freeing and 
selling bandwidth, but only to a subset of consumers - the ones that 
want multichanneling. They may be real, but they ain't mine; so the 
digital TV push says "if Richard co-operates, then people who want 
multi-channeling can have it."

But that still isn't a pitch that delivers benefits to me!

"What if everybody felt the way you do?"
"Then I'd sure be a fool to feel any other way."
- Catch-22

RC
> the main one being the ability to deliver more content within a given 
> bandwidth.  Just look at ABC and SBS (the only services that are 
> currently permitted to multi-channel),  They each deliver one analogue 
> service on each of the channels that they use to broadcast analogue 
> on, but currently each deliver 6 digital services on each of the 
> channels that they use to broadcast digital on.
>
> What we need is for the commercial stations to be permitted to 
> multi-channel, and for there to be more (or even any would be nice) 
> quality content.
>
>>> technology moves on and scarce resources are reallocated. that's why,
>>> for example, town planners don't waste much public space in roads and
>>> towns on drinking troughs for horses and camels any more.
>>>   
>> When we're talking about a consumer product, I'm not convinced that 
>> government edict is a good way to measure obsolescence.
>>
>> RC
>>>
>>> craig
>>>
>>>   
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing list
>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>>
>