Information from Broadcast Industry Insiders
"Wrap this around your head a few times." is beyond the bounds humor. It's just not needed. 2 respected moderators are asking for a temp ban on you BCF, and I'm running out of reasons not to do it.
Editing this thread is getting to be a nightmare. The original topic is "Information from Broadcast Industry Insiders". Lets stick to it. If you guys want to talk about radiation, move it to another thread.
Editing this thread is getting to be a nightmare. The original topic is "Information from Broadcast Industry Insiders". Lets stick to it. If you guys want to talk about radiation, move it to another thread.
Yes I would, but not on here, for this is an issue that should be kept inside the industry, and would not be proper for the general public since they do not think that microwave, or general RF exposure is an issue in the first place. Sheeple are everywhere, and trying to tell them anything they don't already believe is a simple waste of time.
I joined this forum to share some of my reception knowledge with those who want it, and to give information from inside the industry to those who desire to know more, such as the plan to take broadcast TV off the air. I enjoy helping people, and to my knowledge, this is still a free society and freedom of speech is one of its most important virtues. If everyone on here wants to be petty just because I despise the current administrations vision of my America, then I am done here.
If all of the criticism of me and my political view points in a still free society is so troubling to almost everyone on here, then it is not worth my time to try and change their minds, and that takes the joy out of helping solve peoples reception issues just because someone does not like my signature.
Grow up people, for this is what has always made this country great, and that greatness is now being threatened by the nations current "Regime" and that is the utmost in insults to those who hold this nations past history and theology with high regard.
I still have the right to independent thought and opinions in this country, that is until they try and take that away too, which is actually part of the current regimes agenda also.
It also seems that you know who I am, but you seem to like hiding behind your assumed name on here, and have not given a clue as to who you are. Until you reveal who you really are, I have no interest in revealing any more information to you, or anyone else who may ask where my sources for that information came from. I can assure you that my sources are reliable.
I joined this forum to share some of my reception knowledge with those who want it, and to give information from inside the industry to those who desire to know more, such as the plan to take broadcast TV off the air. I enjoy helping people, and to my knowledge, this is still a free society and freedom of speech is one of its most important virtues. If everyone on here wants to be petty just because I despise the current administrations vision of my America, then I am done here.
If all of the criticism of me and my political view points in a still free society is so troubling to almost everyone on here, then it is not worth my time to try and change their minds, and that takes the joy out of helping solve peoples reception issues just because someone does not like my signature.
Grow up people, for this is what has always made this country great, and that greatness is now being threatened by the nations current "Regime" and that is the utmost in insults to those who hold this nations past history and theology with high regard.
I still have the right to independent thought and opinions in this country, that is until they try and take that away too, which is actually part of the current regimes agenda also.
It also seems that you know who I am, but you seem to like hiding behind your assumed name on here, and have not given a clue as to who you are. Until you reveal who you really are, I have no interest in revealing any more information to you, or anyone else who may ask where my sources for that information came from. I can assure you that my sources are reliable.
NAB’s Smith Testifies at Spectrum Hearing
NAB (National Association of Broadcasters)
NAB President and CEO Gordon
Smith has testified before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
regarding government
efforts to expand broadband access in
America. Smith’s remarks highlighted
the role of local broadcasters and reiterated
NAB’s support for spectrum
inventory legislation.
Smith, a former two-term Senator
from Oregon, emphasized NAB’s desire
to see both broadband and broadcast
flourish, and he stressed the important
role broadcasters can play in furthering
the rollout of nationwide broadband.
“Simply put, any notion that we’re
looking at a world of broadband verses
broadcast is false. It’s a false choice,” he
told the committee.
Calling proposed spectrum fees
“punitive,” Smith expressed concern that
such regulatory action could be viewed
as a mechanism to force broadcasters off
the airwaves.
“Make no mistake: such a punitive
measure, such a fee, would be a devastating
blow to the small businesses that
I represent in the broadcast industry,”
Smith said.
Smith also outlined broadcast
television’s efficient use of spectrum,
noting that broadcasters provide entertainment
programming as well as critical
information during times of crisis. Because
broadcast TV is a one-to-everyone
delivery system, he said, viewers are
never subjected to the network congestion
routinely experienced by mobile
phone users.
“Broadcasting is a highly efficient
use of spectrum. It’s one-to-everyone.
Broadband is one-to-one, and it’s spectrum
hogging,” Smith explained.
NAB (National Association of Broadcasters)
NAB President and CEO Gordon
Smith has testified before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
regarding government
efforts to expand broadband access in
America. Smith’s remarks highlighted
the role of local broadcasters and reiterated
NAB’s support for spectrum
inventory legislation.
Smith, a former two-term Senator
from Oregon, emphasized NAB’s desire
to see both broadband and broadcast
flourish, and he stressed the important
role broadcasters can play in furthering
the rollout of nationwide broadband.
“Simply put, any notion that we’re
looking at a world of broadband verses
broadcast is false. It’s a false choice,” he
told the committee.
Calling proposed spectrum fees
“punitive,” Smith expressed concern that
such regulatory action could be viewed
as a mechanism to force broadcasters off
the airwaves.
“Make no mistake: such a punitive
measure, such a fee, would be a devastating
blow to the small businesses that
I represent in the broadcast industry,”
Smith said.
Smith also outlined broadcast
television’s efficient use of spectrum,
noting that broadcasters provide entertainment
programming as well as critical
information during times of crisis. Because
broadcast TV is a one-to-everyone
delivery system, he said, viewers are
never subjected to the network congestion
routinely experienced by mobile
phone users.
“Broadcasting is a highly efficient
use of spectrum. It’s one-to-everyone.
Broadband is one-to-one, and it’s spectrum
hogging,” Smith explained.
Last edited:
The problem I have is that you have stations that broadcast programming no one is interested in yet they occupy a whole channel. I'm talking about infomercial channels. Why these are even allowed to exist and occupy a whole physical channel is beyond me. I guess it's a 1st amendment issue?
But if you look at it, some of them broadcast 1 SD stream and have about 10Mbps of NULL packets. Maybe if the FCC is looking at consolidation they should target these stations. Lump all of the infomercial blasters within a 50 mile radius into one transmitter. Out here I can receive two infomercial stations - WASA-LD and WNJJ-LD. WNJJ doesn't even seem to care about the quality of what they transmit because often times I'd tune to them and hear horribly distorted audio. It looks like someone at master control just decided to go AKTR (all knobs to the right).
But if you look at it, some of them broadcast 1 SD stream and have about 10Mbps of NULL packets. Maybe if the FCC is looking at consolidation they should target these stations. Lump all of the infomercial blasters within a 50 mile radius into one transmitter. Out here I can receive two infomercial stations - WASA-LD and WNJJ-LD. WNJJ doesn't even seem to care about the quality of what they transmit because often times I'd tune to them and hear horribly distorted audio. It looks like someone at master control just decided to go AKTR (all knobs to the right).
Last edited:
Yes, I know, but....
These "Trash" broadcasters (My Term for them) do have a place in broadcasting under today's current regulations, even though they are not required to participate in the EAS system ( Emergency Alert System), and are not considered important, except for some of the "Community" low power operations which do serve a distinct emergency communications purpose. If we look at any type of content, be it these types of broadcasters, or the twitter, facebook, or myspace users, or online video gamers, one can honestly say that there is a whole lot of useless and non essential, and unimportant communications that take place on that infrastructure too, but they seem to be getting all of the glory and consideration when talking about the theft of the TV Broadcast spectrum.
Look at all of the useless texting, sexting, and whatever other terms that people use to describe the somewhat mindless use of the broadband spectrum by today's youth. Such a mindless use of the airwaves, yet the greed for the dollar has blanked out any type of common sense that may still exist in regards to our nationwide emergency communications system (Broadcast TV, AM, and FM Broadcasting included). Several politicians have recently come to the rescue of the Amateur Radio Spectrum just for the very purpose of protecting its spectrum for emergency communications needs. If that does not show how valuable the broadcast infrastructure is for emergency communications, then every citizens personal safety will be put in jeopardy if that system is lost to the mindless uses of the broadband spectrum we see today.
Some TV broadcasters are obviously in it for the money, and community service to the public means very little to them. Most broadcasters take the "Public Service" requirement to heart, and serving the community of license is as important to some as are profits. The Broadband industry is driven totally by profit, as they have no "Public Service" requirements to obey, and they will not invest in making their infrastructure as reliable as the current TV broadcast infrastructure that is virtually brand new due to the Digital Transition.
Our oldest transmitter is only 5 years old, and their design life is somewhere around 20 years or so with good upkeep and maintenance. It would almost be a crime to take all of the money and time and resources that were invested in the transition and throw it all away for the facebook, myspace, and twitter crowd. Such mindless uses are driving the greed for spectrum, and as Mr. Smith pointed out: broadcasters are a one to all method of communications, where Broadband communications are one to one, and are a big waste of precious radio spectrum, and no new spectrum can be created.
The precious radio spectrum is a limited "Public Resource" that should not be sold off exclusively for use by the spectrum Robber Barron's (The broadband Industry) simply for obscene profits and greed, while our only reliable nationwide emergency communications is in peril for the sake of greed and extreme profits for the broadband industry.
Where is the common sense these days? Answer: It has been blinded by the need and greed for the almighty dollar for many years now, and that in itself should be a crime. No one has even considered that the Broadcast signals we send out are not just TV and entertainment, what we have is a data transport system that parallels broadband, and even surpasses it in some aspects, as it can reach an audience of hundreds of thousands at one time, where the broadband method, and especially the Cell Phone method is as stated a one to one connection. There are possible uses for our spectrum that have not even been thought of, but if viewed as a data transport stream, one my be able to envision new and undiscovered uses for it at the same time it is used for TV Broadcasting.
These "Trash" broadcasters (My Term for them) do have a place in broadcasting under today's current regulations, even though they are not required to participate in the EAS system ( Emergency Alert System), and are not considered important, except for some of the "Community" low power operations which do serve a distinct emergency communications purpose. If we look at any type of content, be it these types of broadcasters, or the twitter, facebook, or myspace users, or online video gamers, one can honestly say that there is a whole lot of useless and non essential, and unimportant communications that take place on that infrastructure too, but they seem to be getting all of the glory and consideration when talking about the theft of the TV Broadcast spectrum.
Look at all of the useless texting, sexting, and whatever other terms that people use to describe the somewhat mindless use of the broadband spectrum by today's youth. Such a mindless use of the airwaves, yet the greed for the dollar has blanked out any type of common sense that may still exist in regards to our nationwide emergency communications system (Broadcast TV, AM, and FM Broadcasting included). Several politicians have recently come to the rescue of the Amateur Radio Spectrum just for the very purpose of protecting its spectrum for emergency communications needs. If that does not show how valuable the broadcast infrastructure is for emergency communications, then every citizens personal safety will be put in jeopardy if that system is lost to the mindless uses of the broadband spectrum we see today.
Some TV broadcasters are obviously in it for the money, and community service to the public means very little to them. Most broadcasters take the "Public Service" requirement to heart, and serving the community of license is as important to some as are profits. The Broadband industry is driven totally by profit, as they have no "Public Service" requirements to obey, and they will not invest in making their infrastructure as reliable as the current TV broadcast infrastructure that is virtually brand new due to the Digital Transition.
Our oldest transmitter is only 5 years old, and their design life is somewhere around 20 years or so with good upkeep and maintenance. It would almost be a crime to take all of the money and time and resources that were invested in the transition and throw it all away for the facebook, myspace, and twitter crowd. Such mindless uses are driving the greed for spectrum, and as Mr. Smith pointed out: broadcasters are a one to all method of communications, where Broadband communications are one to one, and are a big waste of precious radio spectrum, and no new spectrum can be created.
The precious radio spectrum is a limited "Public Resource" that should not be sold off exclusively for use by the spectrum Robber Barron's (The broadband Industry) simply for obscene profits and greed, while our only reliable nationwide emergency communications is in peril for the sake of greed and extreme profits for the broadband industry.
Where is the common sense these days? Answer: It has been blinded by the need and greed for the almighty dollar for many years now, and that in itself should be a crime. No one has even considered that the Broadcast signals we send out are not just TV and entertainment, what we have is a data transport system that parallels broadband, and even surpasses it in some aspects, as it can reach an audience of hundreds of thousands at one time, where the broadband method, and especially the Cell Phone method is as stated a one to one connection. There are possible uses for our spectrum that have not even been thought of, but if viewed as a data transport stream, one my be able to envision new and undiscovered uses for it at the same time it is used for TV Broadcasting.
Last edited:
I have to agree that between broadcasts and broadband for urbanites with their iPhones, that broadcasters should be left alone. I must admit I'm a bit biased since I do work in the TV/media industry (but not for an OTA broadcast TV station). But I don't see how a station wasting 6MHz to broadcast 1 channel of infomercials is serving the public. That just to me does not make sense. If not consolidation, how about opening up their subchannels to other programming? I seem to remember reading that the FCC in the 80s used to revoke licenses of broadcasters that were not providing programming that would properly serve their audience, or something like that.
This hints at the broad outlines of how the initial stages of the "shared spectrum" grab might work: The LPs running infomercials and religious broadcasting, lacking pockets as deep as network affiliates, would be the first to get knocked off by spectrum fees. This would only undermine the remaining OTA affiliates in the long run, of course.
I re-read a quote FoxTV shared earlier in this thread just now, and it reminded me of a fascinating aspect to all of this: Does is strike anyone else as even remotely odd that Reed Hundt would be talking about his sooper seekrit desire to rid America of the scourge of over-the-air television broadcasting now, a full decade and a half after the fact? Hundt served as FCC chairman back when the Democratic Party actually still believed in good-government reforms such as sunshine laws, so why is he just getting around to bringing it up?
Rhetoric such as this used to get tagged with a charitable characterization that's now rather outdated: "credibility gap."
I re-read a quote FoxTV shared earlier in this thread just now, and it reminded me of a fascinating aspect to all of this: Does is strike anyone else as even remotely odd that Reed Hundt would be talking about his sooper seekrit desire to rid America of the scourge of over-the-air television broadcasting now, a full decade and a half after the fact? Hundt served as FCC chairman back when the Democratic Party actually still believed in good-government reforms such as sunshine laws, so why is he just getting around to bringing it up?
Rhetoric such as this used to get tagged with a charitable characterization that's now rather outdated: "credibility gap."
Just an additional note: The low power operations are quickly approaching their filling deadline for their conversion to digital. There is even government grant money of $65,000 per transmitter to help them through the transition. The filing deadline is May 24th, and they have to tell the FCC what their plans are on or before that date. This may give some of them a chance to become more than a Home Shopping outlet with the same sub channel capability as Class A stations.
The only problem for them is money, as $65,000 dollars may buy them transmitters and antennas, but that leaves little for them to update their master controls, which for a low power operation, would be a costly undertaking. The transmitter and antenna is only part of the picture. it will take almost that much more money to update the rest of the signal chain that makes up the entire digital TV broadcasting system.
They have to be able to send a digital signal in the proper format to the transmitter, which means that existing analog content has to be converted to a digital format, and the equipment needed to do that is not cheap, and is not subsidized by the Government. Since they now have a deadline for registering their plans with the FCC, you may see some of these low power transmitters go dark in the near future due to costs alone. Conservative estimates put the master Control upgrade at around 50 to $80,000 or more.
The only problem for them is money, as $65,000 dollars may buy them transmitters and antennas, but that leaves little for them to update their master controls, which for a low power operation, would be a costly undertaking. The transmitter and antenna is only part of the picture. it will take almost that much more money to update the rest of the signal chain that makes up the entire digital TV broadcasting system.
They have to be able to send a digital signal in the proper format to the transmitter, which means that existing analog content has to be converted to a digital format, and the equipment needed to do that is not cheap, and is not subsidized by the Government. Since they now have a deadline for registering their plans with the FCC, you may see some of these low power transmitters go dark in the near future due to costs alone. Conservative estimates put the master Control upgrade at around 50 to $80,000 or more.
surprising responses to a letter sent to two of my Senators
Dear Mr.__________
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Federal Communication Commission's recent announcement regarding the National Broadband Plan. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me.
At the direction of Congress, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) drafted and released a plan to increase broadband internet capacity across the country. Due to increased demand for airwave spectrum, the FCC considered the distribution of airwave access between broadband (internet) and broadcast (television). One method the FCC proposed was taking back airwaves from broadcasters, in order to auction them to broadband carriers. If broadcasters voluntary relinquish their airwaves, they may be eligible for a portion of the proceeds from the auction. This proposal would impact television broadcasters as well as those who use antennas to receive television signals. As of April 20, 2010, the FCC Chairman has indicated that the agency will not pursue authority to forcibly acquire airwaves from broadcasters. As the FCC executes the National Broadband Plan, my staff and I will monitor the progress to ensure the best interests of Virginians are considered.
As the Senate continues to address broadband and broadcast airwaves, please be assured that your views will be very helpful to me and my staff. I hope that you will continue to share your views with us in the years ahead.
I would also invite you to visit my website at Webb Home Page for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.
Thank you once again for contacting my office.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator
JW: jb
_________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. ____________
Thank you for contacting me regarding broadband spectrum allocations. As we work in the Senate to meet the enormous challenges facing this country, including efforts to strengthen our economy, improve our health care system and establish energy independence, your views and those of your fellow Virginians are very important to me.
I am honored to serve Virginia as your United States Senator. My top priority in the Senate is to provide efficient and effective constituent service to all Virginians. Please be sure that my office will review your comments carefully as I consider and vote on relevant legislation.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, please continue to be in touch with your opinions and concerns.
Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator
In response to the bold text..The question is, Do we believe them? And in typical Government style, the second response from Mr. Warner was only a generic response form that did little to address the actual content of my letter, it only confirmed that they received it, but gives no indication that they actually read its content (Except for maybe the title of the letter). I would expect him to outline his stance, but instead, he danced around the issue without providing any clue as to his beliefs on this issue.
Dear Mr.__________
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Federal Communication Commission's recent announcement regarding the National Broadband Plan. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me.
At the direction of Congress, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) drafted and released a plan to increase broadband internet capacity across the country. Due to increased demand for airwave spectrum, the FCC considered the distribution of airwave access between broadband (internet) and broadcast (television). One method the FCC proposed was taking back airwaves from broadcasters, in order to auction them to broadband carriers. If broadcasters voluntary relinquish their airwaves, they may be eligible for a portion of the proceeds from the auction. This proposal would impact television broadcasters as well as those who use antennas to receive television signals. As of April 20, 2010, the FCC Chairman has indicated that the agency will not pursue authority to forcibly acquire airwaves from broadcasters. As the FCC executes the National Broadband Plan, my staff and I will monitor the progress to ensure the best interests of Virginians are considered.
As the Senate continues to address broadband and broadcast airwaves, please be assured that your views will be very helpful to me and my staff. I hope that you will continue to share your views with us in the years ahead.
I would also invite you to visit my website at Webb Home Page for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.
Thank you once again for contacting my office.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator
JW: jb
_________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. ____________
Thank you for contacting me regarding broadband spectrum allocations. As we work in the Senate to meet the enormous challenges facing this country, including efforts to strengthen our economy, improve our health care system and establish energy independence, your views and those of your fellow Virginians are very important to me.
I am honored to serve Virginia as your United States Senator. My top priority in the Senate is to provide efficient and effective constituent service to all Virginians. Please be sure that my office will review your comments carefully as I consider and vote on relevant legislation.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, please continue to be in touch with your opinions and concerns.
Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator
In response to the bold text..The question is, Do we believe them? And in typical Government style, the second response from Mr. Warner was only a generic response form that did little to address the actual content of my letter, it only confirmed that they received it, but gives no indication that they actually read its content (Except for maybe the title of the letter). I would expect him to outline his stance, but instead, he danced around the issue without providing any clue as to his beliefs on this issue.
Last edited:
We have one LP analog station here that has essentially gone off the air. Problem is that they are still broadcasting a carrier, just no video. And no they haven't gone digital.
It normally wouldn't be a problem but they occupy the same channel as a digital station (WNJU) which would be receivable if Channel 36 just went off air.
Honestly I don't think anyone would miss it and I don't even see why a low power station was needed out here. Those that have antennas have good enough antennas to receive the main signal that it is repeating/translating (WNJN/WNJB). The others have cable or dish. But they have filed to convert to digital on channel 35. The question is when.
It normally wouldn't be a problem but they occupy the same channel as a digital station (WNJU) which would be receivable if Channel 36 just went off air.
Honestly I don't think anyone would miss it and I don't even see why a low power station was needed out here. Those that have antennas have good enough antennas to receive the main signal that it is repeating/translating (WNJN/WNJB). The others have cable or dish. But they have filed to convert to digital on channel 35. The question is when.
Last edited:
Normally when a station applies for a change to their operations, they have 3 years to comply with the construction permit or CP as it is called in the industry. I don't know if this would apply since it is a mandated change, but the official filing deadline is may 24th for low power operations. Lets hope that some of them survive, and actually have enough funds to put up sub channels, as this would strengthen the overall broadcast industry. If a lot of them fail, it would be good cannon fodder for the take over of the rest of the DTV spectrum.
Well, at least Senator Webb cared enough to send an actual answer to your letter rather than (insert issue of concern here), followed by a boilerplate response!
Seeing as how Genachowski is a lawyer, you have to pay attention to what the definition of what "is" is, of course. This quote sounds good, but look again: Nothing in that sentence prevents him from dicing up the spectrum through bribes -- snap, I mean "voluntary auctions!" -- and accomplishing his objectives. Genachowski looks much less like a bully this way, too.
Which begs the question: Why dole out grants when your long-term aim is to put them out of business? This is reminiscent of the bad old days when government would subsidize tobacco farmers out of one hand... and use the other to hike the cigarette excise tax and launch anti-smoking campaigns.
Seeing as how Genachowski is a lawyer, you have to pay attention to what the definition of what "is" is, of course. This quote sounds good, but look again: Nothing in that sentence prevents him from dicing up the spectrum through bribes -- snap, I mean "voluntary auctions!" -- and accomplishing his objectives. Genachowski looks much less like a bully this way, too.
Which begs the question: Why dole out grants when your long-term aim is to put them out of business? This is reminiscent of the bad old days when government would subsidize tobacco farmers out of one hand... and use the other to hike the cigarette excise tax and launch anti-smoking campaigns.
Because the pay-TV companies would raise prices and absorb the subsidies over time, that's why. In the end, the service would be no more affordable to subscribers.
The same thing has happened with the cost of college over the past generation. We as a society decided during the 60s and 70s that higher education was "too expensive," and that everyone who had the academic ability to succeed in college should have the opportunity to attend. This was a noble goal, to be sure, but there was just one problem: It didn't really get any more affordable despite the G.I. Bill, followed by the plethora of loan programs, direct student grants, subsidized private loans, work-study programs, tax exemptions and tax credits for civilians that have been thrown at this problem for 30-plus years. While general inflation rose at an average annual rate of 4 percent, the cost of college went up 8 percent a year. When lots of federal dollars float around, lots of people and entities will be standing around, waiting to catch them. Colleges and universities are no exception.
Not convinced? Here's a real-world comparison: My two nieces and I attended somewhat comparable, competitive (theirs more so than mine), private Northeastern universities. These schools are neither Harvard nor Podunk State. The estimated (by the school) cost for my last year of college in the early 80s -- tuition, fees, room, board, and a laughably small weekly cash allowance -- had just surpassed the princely sum of $10,000. By the time each of my nieces was a senior, the comparable figures for their last years were on both sides of $45,000. This is over a period of about 25 years. What else explains this but the presence of ever-expanding subsidies?
For another thing, who pays when the government subsidizes anything? Here's a clue: It's not men from Mars.
The same thing has happened with the cost of college over the past generation. We as a society decided during the 60s and 70s that higher education was "too expensive," and that everyone who had the academic ability to succeed in college should have the opportunity to attend. This was a noble goal, to be sure, but there was just one problem: It didn't really get any more affordable despite the G.I. Bill, followed by the plethora of loan programs, direct student grants, subsidized private loans, work-study programs, tax exemptions and tax credits for civilians that have been thrown at this problem for 30-plus years. While general inflation rose at an average annual rate of 4 percent, the cost of college went up 8 percent a year. When lots of federal dollars float around, lots of people and entities will be standing around, waiting to catch them. Colleges and universities are no exception.
Not convinced? Here's a real-world comparison: My two nieces and I attended somewhat comparable, competitive (theirs more so than mine), private Northeastern universities. These schools are neither Harvard nor Podunk State. The estimated (by the school) cost for my last year of college in the early 80s -- tuition, fees, room, board, and a laughably small weekly cash allowance -- had just surpassed the princely sum of $10,000. By the time each of my nieces was a senior, the comparable figures for their last years were on both sides of $45,000. This is over a period of about 25 years. What else explains this but the presence of ever-expanding subsidies?
For another thing, who pays when the government subsidizes anything? Here's a clue: It's not men from Mars.
Satellite legislation clears congress, seems to favor ota broadcasters !!
SATELLITE LEGISLATION CLEARS CONGRESS
The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have both approved the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA), which reauthorizes satellite carriage of broadcast television signals. The bill now moves to President Obama’s desk for consideration.
The bill, while not perfect in every respect, more importantly, does not include provisions vigorously advocated by the satellite industry to modify local DMAs to allow the importation of duplicating adjacent-market network stations, nor does it contain provisions vigorously advocated by both the cable and satellite industries to weaken the existing retransmission consent law.
The defeat of both of those harmful provisions and re authorization of the satellite act to provide program exclusivity to digital primary and multicast channels represents a significant legislative victory for the broadcast industry, and is a tribute to the government relations efforts of NAB, the affiliate associations, state broadcast associations, and various television broadcasters who worked tirelessly on these issues over the last year.
The bill was extended for a 5 year term and creates incentives, again, supported by NAB and the broadcast industry, for the DISH Network to extend local-into-local service to all 210 television markets, which, of course, is very good news for television stations in markets that do not now have local-into-local satellite service.
We will provide a detailed summary of the bill’s final provisions if, as expected, the bill is signed by the President and enacted into law.
SATELLITE LEGISLATION CLEARS CONGRESS
The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have both approved the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA), which reauthorizes satellite carriage of broadcast television signals. The bill now moves to President Obama’s desk for consideration.
The bill, while not perfect in every respect, more importantly, does not include provisions vigorously advocated by the satellite industry to modify local DMAs to allow the importation of duplicating adjacent-market network stations, nor does it contain provisions vigorously advocated by both the cable and satellite industries to weaken the existing retransmission consent law.
The defeat of both of those harmful provisions and re authorization of the satellite act to provide program exclusivity to digital primary and multicast channels represents a significant legislative victory for the broadcast industry, and is a tribute to the government relations efforts of NAB, the affiliate associations, state broadcast associations, and various television broadcasters who worked tirelessly on these issues over the last year.
The bill was extended for a 5 year term and creates incentives, again, supported by NAB and the broadcast industry, for the DISH Network to extend local-into-local service to all 210 television markets, which, of course, is very good news for television stations in markets that do not now have local-into-local satellite service.
We will provide a detailed summary of the bill’s final provisions if, as expected, the bill is signed by the President and enacted into law.
Attention antenna tv viewers, please help !!!
Here is an organization we all need to support if we want to keep OTA TV from extinction !!
“The Free TV Coalition exists to promote public awareness and use of free television. We are working hard to help people understand that free television still exists and that it is better than ever! Through education with accurate information we are helping viewers to see that they may receive the many benefits of free television with minimal effort and perhaps a one-time cost on their part.
We are here in support of the fight against the spectrum grab. By joining with us, you will have the opportunity to submit your own ideas while engaging in this joint effort to promote public awareness and use of free television.”
Free TV Coalition
This coalition is supported by Gary Sgrignoli of Meintel, Sgrignoli, & Wallace. Mr. Sgrignoli is one of the original design engineers of the 8-VSB modulation method used in DTV broadcasting, and he is a big supporter of OTA Broadcasting. He was employed by Zenith during the development of DTV broadcasting, and he currently holds nationwide seminars for broadcast engineers, educating them about the 8-VSB digital broadcasting standard he helped create.
Please support these efforts to save OTA Broadcasting. He also believes that the Nielsen numbers do not accurately reflect the growing number of OTA users, when the trend in the industry seems to down play OTA usage numbers for some reason. (FOLLOW THE MONEY !!)
Here is an organization we all need to support if we want to keep OTA TV from extinction !!
“The Free TV Coalition exists to promote public awareness and use of free television. We are working hard to help people understand that free television still exists and that it is better than ever! Through education with accurate information we are helping viewers to see that they may receive the many benefits of free television with minimal effort and perhaps a one-time cost on their part.
We are here in support of the fight against the spectrum grab. By joining with us, you will have the opportunity to submit your own ideas while engaging in this joint effort to promote public awareness and use of free television.”
Free TV Coalition
This coalition is supported by Gary Sgrignoli of Meintel, Sgrignoli, & Wallace. Mr. Sgrignoli is one of the original design engineers of the 8-VSB modulation method used in DTV broadcasting, and he is a big supporter of OTA Broadcasting. He was employed by Zenith during the development of DTV broadcasting, and he currently holds nationwide seminars for broadcast engineers, educating them about the 8-VSB digital broadcasting standard he helped create.
Please support these efforts to save OTA Broadcasting. He also believes that the Nielsen numbers do not accurately reflect the growing number of OTA users, when the trend in the industry seems to down play OTA usage numbers for some reason. (FOLLOW THE MONEY !!)
I don't know about you, but I don't like depending on cable companies, especially monopolies.
Cable companies also try their best not to carry some local stations. For example, we lost WTBY when they went digital only. The cable company (Service Electric) claimed that they lost the signal at the headend. I don't know how true this is because WTBY is very strong here (it even shows up on AntennaWeb believe it or not), the cable company's tower is approximately 300ft higher than I am and they are not that far away. So in short I don't buy their explanation. Here is the other thing - shortly after WTBY was dropped from the broadcast basic cable lineup, its digital offerings TBN, JCTV and Smile of A Child (received via satellite probably) showed up as encrypted digital channels and part of the $63/mo "expanded basic" offering. Conspiracy to get people to sign up for expanded basic? Maybe.
The other thing is that up until recently we would lose cable every time power goes out. I think the cable company only put in backup power when they started rolling out phone service.
There are many other reasons people would like to drop cable. A huge one in rural communities is the cost of a plant extension if you're a little off the beaten path. It can be as high as $10,000+ to get cable run to your house if you're say 500 ft from the main road. This includes the cost of trenching, engineering and the coax itself. It usually doesn't include the cost of actives (amps usually). Getting your TV via dish might be fine except that the dish doesn't carry all of the locals in HD.
Above all I like the fact that there is an independent option that allows you to get programming directly from broadcasters without a middleman such as a cable company or ISP. I think that in the American spirit that ought to be preserved. Independence. Think about it.
Cable companies also try their best not to carry some local stations. For example, we lost WTBY when they went digital only. The cable company (Service Electric) claimed that they lost the signal at the headend. I don't know how true this is because WTBY is very strong here (it even shows up on AntennaWeb believe it or not), the cable company's tower is approximately 300ft higher than I am and they are not that far away. So in short I don't buy their explanation. Here is the other thing - shortly after WTBY was dropped from the broadcast basic cable lineup, its digital offerings TBN, JCTV and Smile of A Child (received via satellite probably) showed up as encrypted digital channels and part of the $63/mo "expanded basic" offering. Conspiracy to get people to sign up for expanded basic? Maybe.
The other thing is that up until recently we would lose cable every time power goes out. I think the cable company only put in backup power when they started rolling out phone service.
There are many other reasons people would like to drop cable. A huge one in rural communities is the cost of a plant extension if you're a little off the beaten path. It can be as high as $10,000+ to get cable run to your house if you're say 500 ft from the main road. This includes the cost of trenching, engineering and the coax itself. It usually doesn't include the cost of actives (amps usually). Getting your TV via dish might be fine except that the dish doesn't carry all of the locals in HD.
Above all I like the fact that there is an independent option that allows you to get programming directly from broadcasters without a middleman such as a cable company or ISP. I think that in the American spirit that ought to be preserved. Independence. Think about it.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | DVR ISSUES ONLY RECORDING LOCAL BROADCAST | Comcast | 0 | |
| G | Re: Xfi App displaying another users information - XFinity | Questions and Answers | 0 | |
| G | Xfi App displaying another users information. - XFinity | Questions and Answers | 0 |
Similar threads
-
F
-
Re: Xfi App displaying another users information - XFinity
- Started by Guest2
- Replies: 0
-
Xfi App displaying another users information. - XFinity
- Started by Guest2
- Replies: 0