Space Patroller Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) I've become aware of somethng that hasn't been addressed about this fiasco. an acquaintance of mine does not have cable and depends on over-the-air signal. For those who want to know the layout of the land, this is not on the fringe area of anything but in a good solid location. She is in Fall River MA at one of the highest locations near the top of President Avenue. This is two major markets, Boston, 50-60 miles away, and Providence, 15-25 miles away, depending on transmitter location. So we're not talking Mickey Mouseville here. Prior to the switch she had 15 channels 10 of which were, as we used to say in CB, beaudacious. Now she gets about 6 of them with their associatated ".x"'s which comes to about 9. Here's the kicker; only about 2 or 3 have strong, reliable signals that don't depend on the weather or are not just plain crappy; always dropping out or having to be futzed around with. The only fix appears to be to spand $300-$400 for a good roof antenna or get cable which she cannot really afford. How much of this have you heard about in the media? Probably not much. If I didn't know the person, I'd have not heard anything at all about this kind of thing. We all know that this was a government-foist...er..created program, right? If somepne put this in a science fiction story, they'd be condemned for laying it on too thick. You can't make this kind of stuff up and be credible as a sci-fi writer. You'd think that with 3 years in the making the techs on the broadcast end of it would have it right or it would be a no-go. This is behaving like something that not only has not been tested experimentally and in beta, but is by nature not doable. Who designed this system? Art Bell? Psychic Buddies? MUFON? This could really stand a good conspiracy theory...Lemme see. the Oil Compaines, Freemasons and Rush Limbaugh got together and...Nope too realistic. How about Dick Cheney, Osama Bin Laden and the Tooth Fairy (representing the Dental Establishment)...Now you're talking! Moving right along: About Government health care?.... Edited June 17, 2009 by Space Patroller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Grathwohl Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 What's worse is that the only people who are going to be affected by this - the elderly, people in remote locations, and other people who have no choice but to use antennae to get television signals, are the very same ones who will either be unable to switch, or will not be knowledgeable of the requirement to switch altogether. I wonder what the government's true motive is in forcefully phasing out analog broadcast signals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister A Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I wonder what the government's true motive is in forcefully phasing out analog broadcast signals... Something like this: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 In a free market, bandwidth would go to the most productive use. I would not be surprised if the <5% of users who only have analog options contribute less than the potential new users (such as mobile phone users, for example). I don't have cable either, so I also saw my channel count shrink. However, I was able to get most of them back by looking the channels up online and adding them manually, then tweaking the antenna until I got a signal. I think with a better antenna, I might be able to get all of them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Dish Network, $20/month, many times with free installation. Your friend has no right to free TV. While I agree the market should be dictating this switch, not the government, I think it's preposterous that people are acting as though they have some right to the TV airwaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Your friend has no right to free TV. While I agree the market should be dictating this switch, not the government, I think it's preposterous that people are acting as though they have some right to the TV airwaves. But over the air, unscrambled TV and radio broadcasts are free. You are not ahcrged for viewing them or even for the right to view them. Broadcaster make money out of selling ad time to sponsors. If you live in a market serve by these broadcasters, it's in their interest that you be able to see and hear their offerings to drive up ratings (bigger ratings mean higher prices for ad times). If you don't live in that market, well, they wont' care much. Still, have you ever been on the Mexican side of the Mexico-US border? In Tijauna, for instance, you pick up all of the San Diego stations easily (and viceversa, I suppose). You'd be surprised how many ads are directed at Tijuanans, even in all-English stations (I don't know if Nielsen tracks viewers in Tijuana, or Reynosa, Nuevo Laredo, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Okay, great, but you still have to buy the equipment (or find someone willing to give it to you) to be able to pick up the "free" signal. I just can't believe TV is so important to someone that they aren't willing to pay $20 a month for a basic satellite or cable package?? Few in America are that poor. And if it's not that important to you, quit complaining. Again, I agree the government shouldn't be involved with the transition, but this transition would've occurred sooner or later anyway and the same people would've been complaining then. I find it annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Again, I agree the government shouldn't be involved with the transition, but this transition would've occurred sooner or later anyway and the same people would've been complaining then. I find it annoying. Yes, but in a more liberal kind of transition it's unlikely all broadcasters would ahve agreed to take part at the same time. Therefore some early adopters might have offered discount or free equipment. More important, broadcasters would have used their share of spectrum as they liked and not as mandated. We're heading towards such a thing in mexico, too. I'm not worried becasue I have cable (at more than $20 a month, BTW). A network caled TV Azteca is using the bandwidth reserved for HD digital transmission to broadcast other offerings, a set of ten or fifteen channels known as Hi TV. Users need to buy a converter box, but they don't have to pay a monthly fee. Other networks along with a myriad government agencies are trying to ban that service. There are other restrictions, too. The signals from US-based satellite TV cover most of Mexico, too, but I can't subscribe to Dish Network or DirecTV if I live in Mexico (I can get a hacked box and pay for pirated/hacked descrambler cards every six months or so and steal all TV signals, though). I've no idea if that's a government restriction or one by the companies themselves (in any case, it sucks). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 http://dishnetwork.com/packages/programming/default.aspx for those of you that may doubt me. And I already said I agree that government shouldn't be involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 http://dishnetwork.com/packages/programming/default.aspx for those of you that may doubt me. I don't doubt you. Cable is just more expensive in Mexico than in the US. I pay about US $35 fro basic cable. There's a satellite service, but it's even more expensive (and cuts out when it rains heavily) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Do any of those packages actually include the basic/local channels? I looked through the cheaper ones and couldn't find any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Actually, in a free market, frequencies would be owned, and then there wouldn't be any regulations as to what to broadcast, so long as individual rights were preserved (i.e. no infringement of copyrights or over-extending one's frequency range to create interference). I couldn't access the Drudge Report mentioned earlier, but the government wanted those frequencies for something else -- so they stole them! No, there is no basic right to TV, free or otherwise, but the property rights of the broadcasters is what is being overlooked in this situation due to "public oversight of the spectrum." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.