Why should anyone care about the watermark?

It's about taxpayers money: Accountability:

The current ABC Corporate Statement 2004-2007 mentions this:

"The Corporation also aims to demonstrate to the Parliament and the community that it provides high value for money."

To quote one writer on a forum (with their permission), ask people who don't care about the watermark 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?"

Then tell them that's exactly what happened in relation to the "watermarking" hardware.

Then, those people who have gone out and spent a small fortune on a big plasma screen might be interested to know that many manufacturers put a warning in the instructions not to watch stations with static logos as they eventually burn into the screen. This can happen in a matter of days.

This is not an exaggeration - check it out yourself if you want.

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/plasmatv-burnin.html

The sad conclusion of this article is that you have to alter your viewing habits to avoid burn-in. Note the statement, "I would NEVER leave a static image on any plasma TV screen, regardless of quality, for more than hour."

It's all a good use of taxpayer's money, eh?!

If the ABC refuses to be held accountable on this, the spending on stuff that is not needed will not stop here. Who would stop them? They certainly don't need to justify spending even when it's clearly pointless! Just write some baloney emails and hope people go away!

Let's not mince words here - the ABC has misused public money, and they are resisting real accountability. This sort of thing doesn't fly in the corporate world, and should not be allowed to go unnoticed here.

Write to the Minister for Communications (address below) and tell her that you don't believe the ABC are spending money in the public interest when it can be easily demonstrated that a watermark serves no purpose, other than the degradation of television standards. Tell her that the lack of accountability that they have shown is deplorable. First of all, they did not consult their audience before introducing something that affects all pictures. Secondly, they respond to viewers complaints in a fait accompli manner (ie."it's policy now" - as if policy can never be changed) and do not acknowledge the paucity of their own arguments as a basis for reconsidering. Tell the minister that if they persist in pursuing this line of management and brushing people off, you expect an investigation or even potentially a reduction in ABC funding.

Tell her that the best solution is taking steps to ban watermarks on all digital channels, including the commercial networks. This would cost the government very little, but give Australian people greatly added incentive to adopt digital TV. Anyone contemplating the switch to digital could be swayed by this two word statement: "No watermarks."

Analogue transmissions are meant to cease in 2008, but the slow uptake on digital means that this date will probably be put back some considerable time. The government would surely be interested in a minor amendment to policy that hastens the completion of a government project - at virtually no cost.

See: How to Complain