Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE=&quot;Piggie, post: 41854, member: 2941&quot;]Orry, good point. And your example is not esoteric, as I have seen it happen here. I know I keep repeating this over and over, but HTNut very very very first sentence in the opening post was this was tied to the government's decision and would involve politics. Being that if we loose all UHF OTA it will be an act of Congress and the FCC, so I just can't see how that topic can be none political. Well I can but follow my logic. Lets say we just discuss the benefits of using those frequencies by either private or public use (OTA).&nbsp; This would be fine and dandy and I guess everyone can go then to their Congressman and send them a message.But it's not that simple, at least to me.&nbsp; It's not a logical decision on the future of OTA.&nbsp; It's not simply just who could make better use of the frequencies.&nbsp; Just like the 700 MHz auction changed from it's conception in the 1990's to it's outcome now of which frequencies went to whom. It's all about money and power, not the technical fasts that will be spun anyway those with the money want us to believe. So to not include this aspect of the decision which in the end is more powerful than the technical aspects seems to be myopic. But not to get off your point, I agree, if we are discussing Kermit's role, we should not then call PBS a government supported political machine.&nbsp;&nbsp; I would think it would be ok to start a thread called &quot;Do you think PBS is just a political machine?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Orry, do you follow my logic and see the difference?&nbsp; I am not saying I am right, just the way I see it.&nbsp; Your input back would be valuable even if you tell me you don't agree! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite4" alt=":mad:" title="Mad&nbsp; &nbsp; :mad:" />)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Piggie, post: 41854, member: 2941"]Orry, good point. And your example is not esoteric, as I have seen it happen here. I know I keep repeating this over and over, but HTNut very very very first sentence in the opening post was this was tied to the government's decision and would involve politics. Being that if we loose all UHF OTA it will be an act of Congress and the FCC, so I just can't see how that topic can be none political. Well I can but follow my logic. Lets say we just discuss the benefits of using those frequencies by either private or public use (OTA). This would be fine and dandy and I guess everyone can go then to their Congressman and send them a message. But it's not that simple, at least to me. It's not a logical decision on the future of OTA. It's not simply just who could make better use of the frequencies. Just like the 700 MHz auction changed from it's conception in the 1990's to it's outcome now of which frequencies went to whom. It's all about money and power, not the technical fasts that will be spun anyway those with the money want us to believe. So to not include this aspect of the decision which in the end is more powerful than the technical aspects seems to be myopic. But not to get off your point, I agree, if we are discussing Kermit's role, we should not then call PBS a government supported political machine. I would think it would be ok to start a thread called "Do you think PBS is just a political machine?" Orry, do you follow my logic and see the difference? I am not saying I am right, just the way I see it. Your input back would be valuable even if you tell me you don't agree! :@)[/QUOTE]

Name

Verification