Digi,

My father purchased a European SD STB and Widesreen TV for under $1000. The box and TV work very together and both are obviously designed to work in several countries. Unlike the dodgytec, everthing works properly.

There's an updated ABC Watermark:

http://img237.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img237&image=abcwmnew4vy.jpg

Simple single colour - it's an improvement.

Good bit of research, John.

I think that says it all really. How can we expect HD STB lower prices than that with less than a tenth of their market?

JB

hmmm, I have a feeling there maybe more behind that then a "simple" number can show. Is it possible that 1 or 2 compainies own the Intellectual Property to some parts or components and hence are making big profits. How about trade agreements to limit cheap imports, (how much of our digital equipment is from asia?) or is it possible that even at those prices they are still selling well, so why drop the price and cut profits?

Sorry, but I don't think that really says much at all, not without a COMPLETE picture.

A little more concrete than claiming HD boxes would be far cheaper under a “HD Only” system.

But in the end none of us should confuse “opinion” with fact. IMO the Australian Consumers Association and other interested parties were correct in pushing for SD transmissions. This opinion is no less valid than what some from the HD Only side describing their argument as “fact”.

I disagree. SD was already an outdated dinosaur when it was started up in 2001.

Tell us please, what HD alternative was available to consumers in 2001?

JB

Yesterday I received a reply to my followup letter. The response was brief and blunt. Here is the letter I sent early this month:



Here is the reply, fresh from the cookie cutter:



Since I've basically weaned myself off the ABC over the past month and am now only watching some of the watermark-free late night movies, I too have nothing to add to what I've said previously, except that it is a pity those staff within the ABC who really care about their programs and viewers have to put up with this style of management and public relations. Hope others have more luck getting information, but it looks like they've basically shut the door on the matter, transparency not being one of their core values.

has anyone seen the watermark on ch2 lately its sailing so far off the edge of the picture its not funny anymore.

on my 37" plasma its got to be 150mm up from the bottom of the screen and 150mm in from the side - and its gigantic and glowing in its full glory back to its two tone colouring. pretty hard to miss and right over the picture !

Well, look at it this way, at least you got a second reply, which was something I never did.
Mind you, I'm not surprised one little bit, the basic translation of that Management BS to english, is that they know the resons they give are totaly bollocks, they know that just about any arguement can shoot it down and so the reply I to give no reply other then the good old parent one, "Because I say so!!!".

It just goes to show that no-one is accountable, if the person that is ment to hold one to account, doesn't care and doesn't do so.

The obvious question to ask (which they can't easily avoid) is what consultation they undertook to ensure that their viewers would find the watermark "useful". Indeed, consultation that they are obliged to undertake as the national broadcaster.

Given the extensive changes they made after implementation, I suspect they would find this question hard to answer. Simply believing something is useful doesn't make it so.

- Miles.

If the ABC looks at all the viewer comments (phone, net, letter) about the watermark I doubt that many will be saying "Thank-you for introducing a watermark - I find it very useful."

I doubt many comments are supportive of the watermark. (Note that comments thanking the ABC for making the watermark less intrusive cannot be considered as positive towards watermarks.)

So viewer reaction is a very good way to prove that there is no basis for keeping a watermark because "it is useful for viewers".

The ABC have really shot themselves in the foot by making this comment!

Currently, no watermark on ABC1 nor ABC2 in Sydney.

No watermark on Keeping Up Appearences, watermark on ABC2

Yup, ABC2 watermark has returned here too.

True, and it's something that might be worth mulling over if your name is John Faulkner. But they're not going to analyse every sentence of a lowly viewer's feedback before responding. If they've decided to avoid the issue, that's what they'll do no matter how a question is worded.

Neglected to mention for the information of others that the response was from Audience & Consumer Affairs. I'd be surprised if anyone squeezes anything out of that department, and those who've tried other avenues may have more luck.

Last night the watermark was so faint that it was almost invisible (if they would only make it totally invisible!!). I have also noticed over the last two Sundays that many programs during the day do not have a watermark at all (including Landline).

The ABC appears to be taking some note of the complaints, but still do not seem to be getting the point that they are not necessary.

Well that didn't last long now its back in the 4X3 safe area, moved up on the screen and heaps bolded and brighter.

rgds Damon

Double watermark on ABC2, both the normal one plus a ABC Sport logo - I thought they werent allowed to broadcast sport?

I found the watermark on Supervolcano particularly annoying (and rang the ABC to complain).

Also, the Sunday Afternoon arts program was broadcast all March without any watermark. But yesterday the watermark was back, and in the 4:3 safe area. I have emailed the ABC to complain about this one.

I fear that removing the watermark from some programs was intended to be a short term measure to stop some complaints. I fear that the idea was to get the viewer used to the watermark on some other programs, and then to bring back the watermark for all programs.

If this fear is true, then I shall become inspired to follow-up further some of my other attacks on the ABC.

Michael

Personally I'm waiting for the new Doctor Who series to start (which I totally expect will have some watermark). At which point I'll be calling the up again and wanting to speak to someone (tried emails, etc before, don't need any more "standard" replies).

The reason I'm waiting for the Doc? Easy, the BBC don't watermark the transmission of this in the UK, in other words, the whole "copy protection", and stop off air recording arguement goes totally out the window.

So I will want someone to explain to me why the ABC MUST watermark when the BBC (orginal source of the show) doesn't.

Latest response from the ABC....



Of course this raises the fundemental question, WHY DO WE NEED A WATERMARK?

At least that response is an improvment on the rather terse "the ABC [...] has nothing to add to its previous correspondence on this matter."

There's a bloody fine attitude.

And my response to the ABC email:

Are they trying to protect the TV program or the watermark. This just goes to show that they have totally ignored everyone's complaints. I am watching less and less of our ABC and I really only watch Dr. Who.

Get used to it, the bug has been forced onto the ABC by FOXTEL. The ABC is more concerned with bending over to its retransmission providers than with its actual free to air viewers anymore. Doctor Who will be back to being bugged tonight by the way, sad to say.

regards,
ct

Yeah, I noticed that, in fact it was about all I noticed during most of the show, guess I didn't have to wait for the new series, bloody $%#%% ABC.

About to email, will phone tomorrow and this time I want to speak to someone in charge, not just reception.

Now, to workout the best and easiest way to remove that bloody watermark.

Yeah, worse than ever! What's wrong with these clowns?

I s'pose managed to avoid the watermark, 'cause I switched it off in disgust within seconds... Great how this watermark thing gets more viewers, eh? Already phoned and emailed. Letter will get sent off to the ABA tomorrow, as the 60 days of not getting a reply to my orginal posted letter have well and truly expired.

Looks like this watermark is permanently on. All shows are watermarked, even the old late night B&W movies...

And the ABC reply to my last email to them was:


It is interesting that the ABC have given NO response to any of our comments on the reasons why a watermark is not required.

It also seems certain now that the weaker watermark, and no watermark on some programming up till now, was just a tempory measure trying to get us used to the watermarks.

I find it very sad that what used to by our ABC has been taken over by a few people sitting around a table within the ABC. These people are acting as if it is their ABC, and stuff the viewers. They are effectively accountable to no-one.

If it is their ABC, then they can pay for it.

I think the watermarking issue can be effectively used to argue for reduced funding for the ABC, and to argue that the ABC needs a new process to become accountable to viewers.

Given that the Liberals are about to have control over the Senate, I would have thought that the ABC needs all the friends that it can get.

Watermarking has made me feel like a spurned lover. I am out for revenge!

A very pissed off Michael

I know some ppl say its just a watermark, get over it.

But in many ways, its no longer about the watermark, its about the fact that the ABC management will not stand up and be counted. They give the most piss weak "reasons" for the watermark, which anyone with half a brain can shot holes through and when one questions further, the reply is "the ABC has nothing further to add" and expects that to be the end of it.

If I didn't know better, one would almost start to think this is a communist run TV station, "You will believe what we tell you and if you don't like it, then too bad."

Come on ppl, don't you think this should matter just a little or do you prefer to be treated like a mushroom.

Exactly right Tony,

The big "political" issue that has arisen from the watermark discussions is that the ABC has no accountablility.

If the ABC expects to get funds from us, then they should be accountable.

I think the watermarking issue will be very damaging to the ABC next time funding for the ABC becomes up next for public debate.

Just checked the ratings to date on oztam, and the ABC for the ratings year to date is sitting on 16.4% (17.7% Last Year) for viewing 18:00 -23:59, and 16.9% (17.8% LY) for viewing 06:00-23:59. (Source oztam.com.au)

Obviously the introduction of a watermark has been a huge boost to ratings!!! I would have thought that a 1.3% drop would be considered significant. Even if the watermark alone has not caused the drop, it most certainly has led to any gains in audience.

As for satisfying Foxtel, this is ridiculous. Why should they kowtow to commerical interests, I thought the whole point of the ABC is that it doesn't do this. Also the number of viewers who watch the ABC on Foxtel would only be a small minority of the overall ABC viewers. I also don't believe that the future of television lies with Foxtel, so why get into bed with them!

You must be the saddest people on the face of the earth... WHO CARES ABOUT THE WATERMARK!!!!!! I know I don't give a flying toss..

I can't believe that you people sit around all day watching and being so hypercritical the ABC's watermark.. and talking about it all the time.. You must all be a bunch of ABC nerds! Why don't you leave the ABC alone... I am 14 years old and my parents dont care about the watermark, my parent's parents dont flippin care about the watermark, my friends dont care about it, and my friend's parents don't care either..

You people are just trying to bully the ABC with those stupid letters. I know why they don't send you proper letters back, because they probably believe that you are a bunch of weirdos with nothing better to do than write a couple of letters to a TV station about their logo in the corner. The ABC is trying to win ratings.. Sure they might not be using the right advertising campaign with their watermark to viewers, but at least they are trying.

I know I am being harsh on you, but I just couldn't take it anymore because you people are just going too far about some crummy watermark on the TV... I think you should all find something better to do.. like NOT WATCH THE TV AT ALL, exercise, watch movies, play with children whatever... but leave the ABC alone!!!!!

They are one of the most original TV networks in Australia, with original ideas and great programming for everyone.. that is why it is called "everyone's ABC", but I am pretty sure that you are in the minority of people who care about the watermark in the first place. The majority of the population either don't care about it, or they find it useful when navigating through TV channels.

Watermarking will never go away, and I think we should all get used to it!

Matt, I guess you haven't noticed what has happened in the UK. BBC used to watermark BBC One and BBC Two but due to public pressure, they got rid of the watermarks. Sure, they do still watermark BBC Three and BBC Four + special events and have towers on BBC Parliament and BBC News 24 (BBC World also has one which turns into a watermark sometimes but I am not talking about an overseas broadcast that goes to quite a few countries, I am talking about one area where a national public broadcaster is).

The ABC watermark was put on mainly because of Foxtel. As such, it is used for marketing (just like the commercials).

The reason why people complain about it is (other than how crap it looks on screen) that the ABC is bowing under pressure from a commercial entity (ie. Foxtel).

RockFM,

You are the sad person, but your immaturity may be an excuse.

Grown-ups know that people are different. I am happy for you that you do not mind watermarks.

I find it hard to understand why you waste your time reading threads that are of no interest to you. I have no interest in football. Perhaps I should find a forum for discussing football and tell everyone how wrong they are to like something which I do not.

As you are only 14 you would not know that in the past the ABC did a much better job at being original and fullfilling its charter. In comparison with say ten years ago, there is very little exciting programming on the ABC.

The fact that the BBC tried to introduce watermarks, and was forced to remove them because of public pressure, shows that we are not the only people who do not like watermarks, and that public pressure can be successful.

And NO, I will not leave the ABC alone.

Michael

Michael.. I respect your views, I guess with public pressure the watermark problem could be fixed.. but I just wanted to get my views across... We should all respect each others views.. But I guess this is what happens to people when something like a watermark is viewed by the public (negative and positive feedback).

I am sorry for calling you guys sad.. and I am not immature... Actually it would of been mature of myself to actually express my views.

P.S I don't like football either.. but i see where you are coming from.

BTW i'm in year 10 at the moment.. i will be 15 in a couple of weeks. 15 is not too young

Come on people let the watermark issue go, rockfm is right maybe a bit blunt but he was spot on, I wish the only thing I had to worry about in life was a watermark. I think it is time to turn off the T.V. and have some fun, and I am not trying to be nasty to anyone and that includes the abc...it is only a watermark!

Try not to use generalisations, like "the majority of the population" when you have no idea how the majority of the population thinks. You never know, you could be in the minority Nothing personal, but you live in a small world at the age of 14/15 and only have some idea of what your friends and family think. Everyone has a right to a personal opinion and you should allow other people to have a differing opinion to yours, without calling them names.

BTW anyone know if the ABC are watermarking RAGE, as they seem to be watermarking everything now?

Yes, Michael is being a bit over the top (compared to me as I don't really feel like discussing the watermark much let alone emailing the ABC even though I do still hate it) but it may do something in the future.

Sorry, but I agree with others, watermarks _can_ go away, especially if you look, as has already been mentioned, to what has happened in the UK.

Furthermore, as someone with years in the industry, particularly as an editor, you have no idea how frustrating it is to deal with watermarked vision internally. Imagine watching historical programs in the future - watch the jumping watermark from shot to shot! This will happen because often library footage will only have one copy - the watermarked one - available. I have already seen Netball on the ABC have a highlights clip that was cropped, zoomed and blurred from shot to shot to obscure all kinds of different original ABC watermarks - then had a new one stuck over the top. It looked bad - really bad. You may not care about the watermark, but do you care about quality?

The question of accountability is also important because it means the ABC no longer cares about serving you, me, anybody. It's no longer 'Everyone's ABC.' I can assure you that such behaviour does not fly in the corporate world. A couple of former high flyers recently in the news can attest to that.

Cheers.

But, this thing has become more than a watermark. A watermark is at worst a translucent icon in the corner. This thing is a giant white blob that's heading rapidly towards the centre of my screen.

And Yes I agree with Michael, it was most anoying during Supervolcano, both during the plentiful dark scenes, but also where there were graphics as part of the program to the right of and below The Blob.

I've just sent a letter to the ABA complaining that the ABC has had 60 days to reply to my initial complaint, but has so far not done so. I discuss a few things that have been mentioned before, but this is how I close.



Let's see what happens...

The number of ABC Execs who watch the ABC via taxpayer funded FOXTEL connections is in the majority. As others including Jet have said before on this forum.
By the way, rage will remain unbugged for the time being, about the only program that is exempt, mostly for internal technical reasons.

ct

At least its still clean on the ABC's Lo defenition channel 20 which I can get on a standard definition box.
That probably means the ABC can provide a bugged feed to foxtel and a clean feed for FTA..

Quote by CT "By the way, rage will remain unbugged for the time being, about the only program that is exempt, mostly for internal technical reasons."

Hey CT any chance of making those internal reasons extend to all of ABC TV ...

Sure, the watermark is not the most important thing in the world.

It's annoying to watch, but there are ways to reduce or eliminate its effects via software.

But for me, the real point is the lack of accountability that ABC management is displaying. Even more annoying is the general trend in society today for large organizations and governments with total disrespect. We have a government offering us "rock solid" promises before an election, banks who treat their customers to never ending fee increases, corporations who cry poor and raise their prices before giving the top executives massive bonuses for a job well done. It goes on, and it seems to me that the ABC watermark is part of that same trend.

We're all just drones and we should be thankful for whatever the "powers that be" deem appropriate for us. I for one don't feel like taking it quietly while they feed us the BS.

OK, a few things.

rockfm: While your parents may not give a damn about the watermark, ask them this, without any reference to the watermark. "How do you feel about YOUR tax dollars being spent on broadcast equipment by the ABC, which has NOTHING to do with the transmission of the program or the creation of any content?"

If they don't care, then how about sending me a blank (signed) cheque that I can spend on anything I like. If they do care, then tell them thats exactly what happened in relation to the "watermarking" hardware.


Toasted: Well done, can't wait to see what reply you get

ct: So am I to understand that once they workout the "internal technical reasons", (which most likely means spending more money to do something that just about no-one wants), then Rage will have the "standard" watermark.



As an update, I had a slightly heated chat on the phone with an ABC staff person (no it wasn't reception), over the watermark issue and its reasons. The reasons were of course all the same, identification in a multi-channel digital environment, branding on Foxtel, off-air copying, etc.
The basic upshot was that these are the reasons and if you don't like it, then piss off.

One interesting thing, well there was a few but this one will do for now, was the subject of station identification. I of course said that the STB shows me the station details and hence don't need it.

The reply was that plenty of ppl do, that the ABC get a number of constant phone calls about shows that they don't even broadcast.

Unfortuneately I wasn't quick enough off the mark and only thought about this later, but, if they are getting calls about shows they don't broadcast, then it stands to reason that it was a show on another station. However, the other stations do have watermarks, so if these watermarks work so great as an identifier, then why are they calling the ABC at all?

Just a little info for you all, incase any of you get the same reply as I did.

Tony,

The funny thing about the excuses for the watermark (presented as reasons) is that they make sense if you do not think about them.

You give a great example with the people call the ABC to complain about other channels example. Sounds good, until you think about it.

I would be interested in hearing the other things the person at the ABC told you.

Michael