[mythtv-users] the US being, considerably less urbanized than either Australia or Britain

[Matthew Geier]

ffrr wrote:

> We would say that population centres are more CENTRALISED, and that the 
> people living in the rural areas are even more remote (less people, 
> greater distances) and so satellite would be even more useful to 
> Australia. The small number of very remote users makes normal wired or 
> direct transmission infrastructure, much less attractive.

  However until recently, use of Satelite TV was relatively rare, 
Australians still are not used to paying for TV, and Satelite TV is 
really mostly a delivery mechanism for pay TV - particularly 'ethnic' TV 
channels - as such most Satelite recivers are probably in the urban areas.

  Most of rual Australia has one or two channels of 'free to air TV'. 
Analogue VHF has quite some usable range. Quite a lot of those rual 
transmitters are still PAL analogue as well, DVB isn't across the entire 
country yet.

  The Australian (Free to Air) TV stations are being dragged kicking and 
screaming into digital. They don't see the point if they can't 
multichannel. The commercial channels are not allowed to - they have to 
use the capacity for HD instead, only the two public broadcasters can 
multichannel and they had all sorts of odd restrictions on what they can do.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3348 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20060219/8cae227f/attachment.bin