Bufcomments Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 This is a terrible idea.... lots off people cannot afford cable TV What are they gonna do has anybody heard of plans?? I have a LCD and can pick up about 15 channels with rabbit ears, weak by the way. What do they want , to reduce the amount of channels you can get like in the past?? I think this shows how much lobbists in DC can control what goes down in this country.
AxelRipper Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 i dont know the details, but i cant see anything like this going down... too many people without cable access at their house (not counting Sat.), not to mention the cost of it
Astrojanitor Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 the logic is the government wants to control the airwaves while direct lines and satellite is for commercial broadcasts. There's a reason why they want the airwaves, but I don't remember what it is and don't feel like looking it up. but I can say with some certainty that the idea is both insane and will never happen.
UConn James Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 AVS thread The new FCC chairman comes from wireless broadband. And quel surprise, his vision includes dissolving UHF spectrum and using it for.... wireless broadband. Govt claimed control of the airwaves to 'protect the public property' and then they sell it off for one-time $. Just an extension of the New London eminent domain ruling --- govt takes public asset and gives it to a private company so they can pull in marginally more tax $ (and, just to note, this action BLEW UP IN THE CITY'S FACE this fall when Pfizer moved out! Moral of the story: Govt should be sticking their fingers into fewer pies, not more). It's a boondoggle, and anyone who says it's anything else is kidding themselves. Telcos want to force those still using OTA to pay for TV. Telcos have so many politicians in their pockets, they walk with a limp. Gifting the airwaves will not result in telcos farting rainbows and free broadband for all. It will not result in rural areas getting broadband any more than rural areas get good OTA service. It's about Telcos getting control, reducing choice/competition, getting a virtual monopoly. They spent a lot of money on the digital conversion coupons, confused a lot of people with false info and three digital delays. Citizens bought converters or new TVs with internal tuners, new antennas, new preamplifiers, new wiring, etc. I spent ~$500 on a new antenna system for our house in good faith that doing so would be a 15-20 year investment. I want that money back if/when that equipment or it's capability becomes downgraded or useless b/c the FCC et al. lied about their intentions. If they touch OTA much beyond what they've already done, I will be shoving my new 5' Yagi antennas up some politicians' and telco bosses' asses. And make no mistake. If you think this isn't your fight b/c you don't have OTA, you're wrong. When they ram this through, they'll move on with even more spring in their step.
Bufcomments Posted January 12, 2010 Author Posted January 12, 2010 AVS thread The new FCC chairman comes from wireless broadband. And quel surprise, his vision includes dissolving UHF spectrum and using it for.... wireless broadband. Govt claimed control of the airwaves to 'protect the public property' and then they sell it off for one-time $. Just an extension of the New London eminent domain ruling --- govt takes public asset and gives it to a private company so they can pull in marginally more tax $ (and, just to note, this action BLEW UP IN THE CITY'S FACE this fall when Pfizer moved out! Moral of the story: Govt should be sticking their fingers into fewer pies, not more). It's a boondoggle, and anyone who says it's anything else is kidding themselves. Telcos want to force those still using OTA to pay for TV. Telcos have so many politicians in their pockets, they walk with a limp. Gifting the airwaves will not result in telcos farting rainbows and free broadband for all. It will not result in rural areas getting broadband any more than rural areas get good OTA service. It's about Telcos getting control, reducing choice/competition, getting a virtual monopoly. They spent a lot of money on the digital conversion coupons, confused a lot of people with false info and three digital delays. Citizens bought converters or new TVs with internal tuners, new antennas, new preamplifiers, new wiring, etc. I spent ~$500 on a new antenna system for our house in good faith that doing so would be a 15-20 year investment. I want that money back if/when that equipment or it's capability becomes downgraded or useless b/c the FCC et al. lied about their intentions. If they touch OTA much beyond what they've already done, I will be shoving my new 5' Yagi antennas up some politicians' and telco bosses' asses. And make no mistake. If you think this isn't your fight b/c you don't have OTA, you're wrong. When they ram this through, they'll move on with even more spring in their step. Thanks UConn, that was an interesting read. I hope more people read this, its really a shame what they can do without an public forum.
Bufcomments Posted January 12, 2010 Author Posted January 12, 2010 You've got bunny ears on an LCD? lol no not really, I have an LCD antenna from radio shack , I wish I could afford an outdoor one so I can get those canadian stations more clearly.
Recommended Posts