its sad/funny how the free to air is said to be dying..[heard the same re radio for decades...

..thing is i first heard the 'excuse' was falling revenue..and the cost of conversion to digetal..before the spin went to local content...lol..local content is them advettorials/cooking shows/cop shows and shows about docters being gods...sold as programing between the adverts

HOW ABOUT US..we..need to../convert to digetal...TOO...

[the cost appears to be near enough to 70 bucks for the converter box...then setting it up...[and i tried the set up with a box/digetal...[its not as simple as retuning the tv apparently]or digetal ISNT HIGH DEFINITION

..so i will need to buy another one..[with instructions]..BUT I WILL NEED TO PAY FULL RETAIL/plus...to retain my acces to..free to air...lol

i recall when tv..lobbied govt to get high-definition..[not just digetal]..so this is why the box i bought so far..isnt working...

the high definition of course was to protect special intrests..who get subsidies from govt...to stop more 'broaDCASTERS BROADCASTING STUFF WE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE INTRESTED IN WATCHING[IE KEEPING THEIR SELECT/ELECT FRANCHISE

im stil conflicted...why high def..not just digetal..w

hy we pay full retail...not the free to air MONOPOLY...who demanded it...

what does digetal ready mean..[ready to take the extra digetal/high definition box?..[re the advertising classifications ,seen on tv of late]

no doudt some scams going down..to keEp selling..non high-def/non digetal tv's..TO US BY YET OTHER MULTINATIONALS/HOLDING DUEL PASSPORTS..?

govt serves the wealthy..we keep swallowing their spin...[lets think about the cost of megabites of downloading from the web[much censored web...via a charging system /..developed by enron..[who also concieved carbon credit/tax]

This is exceptionally alarming!

Can someone please, please, PLEASE get that worthless chimpanzee Conroy fired from his job?
It's become pretty obvious he really has no idea what he's doing at all- no less after Labor did EXACTLY the same thing for our motor industry just to watch them bugger off overseas, cash in pocket.

But I suppose our past government officials in similar roles haven't been that much better- putting taxpayer's money into Baz Lurman's Australia film- a box office flop not much different from his other flops- despite the insane amount of advertising they get. And let's not forget the golden opportunity we had when filmakers from the US came in droves to use Australian studios, artists, animators and editors- as an opportunity to actually revive our industry somewhat- nope.

The major problem is although we DO have good film-makers, hardly any of them are noticed until they cobble together a film on a shoestring budget (The Castle, Kenny, Mad MAx, Undead), while every dull, dreary schlock-fest that confusingly combines gloomy, snotty, whiny and unrealistic social-drama with unfunny comedy delivered by awkward dialogue is elevated by someone out there- and viewers are bombarded by ads about it and avoid it anyway.

So a talent-agency is out because they get too confused about what makes a movie good.
I think we need some system that allows any writer to get a leg-up (say, in loans, including props and cheaper stage access), we'd have the problem half-solved.

We just need to think about advertising (very important) and the people broadcasting it.

I've got a great idea. Why don't Simon Whipp and all the members of Actors Equity put up *their* money since they are so sure that Australian content is so much in public demand?

The reason they don't do it is obvious: because if in the absence of government handouts the Australian film industry tends to lose money, we already *know* that Simon's argument is false. The mass of consumers *don't* want it, otherwise they'd buy it it, wouldn't they? Simon's case is nothing but special pleading: gimme, gimme, gimme. He just wants to be paid for providing something that he knows that other people, like him, don't want to pay for.

Perhaps we should also have stolen handouts for wagon-wheel manufacturers? This would prove that the federal government "still sees value in the public crafts". It would be an "incredibly valuable public resource both in terms of the commercial opportunities it enables and the social cohesion it promotes."