Slashdot Mirror

I realize it's a popular opinion to assume Pai has been bought and sold but it continually surprises me no one in gov't has launched an investigation into his ties yet.

He doesn't need to be investigated, because it's already out there. He is bought and sold, and has not claimed otherwise, because he knows anyone could immediately prove he's lying. So he doesn't bother lying about it.

Here's his financial disclosures. Go to page 2 of the 2016 financial disclosures and you'll see that his personal income is/was from Jenner & Block LLP. That's the company Pai joined to represent telecom companies.

His replacement (and previous boss) still has a page there, where it explains the job:

He represents cable, telecom, media and technology companies in a wide variety of matters including litigation, proceedings before regulatory agencies and transactions. Mr. Federâ(TM)s practice is enhanced by the knowledge and experience gained from serving as General Counsel to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and, before that, as a senior legal and policy advisor to two FCC Commissioners."

Got that? He worked at a company where his job was to influence the FCC for profit.

You don't need to hide your dirt when you're displaying it openly. Pai is beyond "corrupt," because he doesn't pretend otherwise. He is, for lack of a better term, an "honest politician" and if that sounds like praise to anyone, they ought to look up what that means.

He represents telecoms, not America. His purpose is to use the power of government to extract money and power from the public and channel it to certain companies. He is a wealth redistribution professional.

If you're a person and don't work at or own stock in a telecom company, then he is your adversary.

He isn't the problem, actually. It's ok to be a telecom lobbyist; somebody's gotta do it. The problem is that some anti-American fuckwit appointed him to the FCC where he woudl have actual power, instead of laughing in his face when he asked/paid for the job. That's like appointing Ted Kaczynski to postal inspector, or hiring John Wayne Gacy to be a clown at your kid's party knowing what he does. You know what their agenda is, because they're totally up-front with you about all the harm they intend.

He will personally profit from his vote to repeal NN, and he will lose money if he votes to retain NN. His own money is on the table and he's voting on it, and YOUR PRESIDENT THINKS THIS MAKES SENSE.

"You know, that might be the answer -- to act boastfully about something we ought to be ashamed of. That's a trick that never seems to fail." -- Colonel Korn

[The FCC's general counsel] added that Schneiderman's request for logs of IP addresses would (...) “raise significant personal privacy concerns.”

I love that one, coming from the FCC when, to everyone’s surprise, they published (freely downloadable) the full set of comments, complete with not only names, but also e-mail address and (if provided) home address of their authors.

A lot of the spam is from adversarial interests against the general American population, such as ISPs, Russia, etc.

That may have different implications than you think. Per page 13 of this analysis of the comments, there were 444,938 comments submitted from Russia, and 444,925 of them were pro-NN.

The entire comment database is freely available for download if you'd like to check for yourself.

through means like "white spaces," which are the invisible, wireless radio airwaves that aren't already owned by broadcasters.

"invisible" - The only radio airwaves that are visible are referred to as "light waves".

"wireless radio airwaves" - Redundant? Is there such a thing as "wired radio airwaves"?

"aren't already owned by broadcasters" - That is the vast, vast majority of the radio spectrum, "broadcasters" control just a small fraction of the radio spectrum.

This plan is to allocate and dedicate one unused UHF Broadcast TV channel in each market for high-speed data transmission. So this proposed service, which broadcasters object to, would be located in the midst of spectrum controlled by TV broadcasters

That Verge article is an indoctrination piece. Garbage article from a garbage outfit. The submitter should have found a publication that deals with actual TV broadcasting and linked to that article instead of this verge garbage. Come on people, do Your Own Thinking instead of getting indoctrinated.

Congress said don't do that.

The classification is the main issue:

In the court case, the FCC said its rules aren't common carrier regulations because "Verizon is free to offer or decline to sell broadband Internet access service to any end user. Verizon need not hold itself out to offer service indifferently to anyone.

Re-classifying them as common carrier would open up a whole different can of worms. The FCC is waiting for Congress to change the rules.

Somehow that is OK, but god forbid any innovator in their own home makes a profit

They are only prohibiting commercial use of consumer grade contracts. There is no prohibition for the innovator getting a business line contract and making money at home.

Which is why this was created as an act of congress, not by the FCC. The FCC was then asked to administer it. It most certainly does apply to broadcast, cable and satellite television distribution networks. One open area -- which I think has been resolved -- is whether this applied to network promos for their own shows, e.g., when you see an ad on the Superbowl for the David Letterman show. Several networks applied for this exemption but the folks that drafted the law said it was always their intent to include network promos, see: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/489143-Eshoo_CALM_Act_Meant_to_Apply_to_Promos.php

We can't just write him off as a dinosaur.

Indeed, ask Dish or Cablevision.

A more recent survey, released by the Pew Research Center on April 15, 2007, indicates that regular viewers of The Daily Show tend to be more knowledgeable about news than audiences of other news sources. Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored in the high knowledge range, followed by Jim Lehrer's program at 53% and Bill O'Reilly's program at 51%, significantly higher than the 34% of network morning show viewers. The survey shows that changing news formats have not made much difference on how much the public knows about national and international affairs, but adds that there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know.source The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a content analysis report suggesting that The Daily Show comes close to providing the complete daily news.source

While not quite the damning of Fox News, it does indeed seem to be Stewart at the top of everybody else

My chief gripe with Cablevision is not that they have bad service (at least from a TV technical standpoint, as they have a ton of channels that rarely drop if at all), or even that they try to maintain their monopoly on coverage area and programming while trying to avoid carrying broadcast stations, but that they wield monopoly power in other areas and make Comcast and Microsoft look utterly inept at it, and it barely registers on Slashdot.

Sadly, I know people that, in their words, "need" these vile cowards' cable. It's like I have a truth mom on my back.

Enjoy it while you can:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/ADverse_Atkinson_on_Advertising/23941-Chase_Carey_Hulu_to_Charge_in_2010.php?nid=2228&source=title&rid=6454445

In order for me to get everything I want you're going to have to make some changes.

Problem is is Techdirt got the details wrong. In his statement Steve Burke actually says the cable industry and content providers need to change their models.

Falcon

Did any of you click through to the original article being quoted?
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366272-CTAM_Summit_2009_Comcast_s_Burke_Tells_TV_Biz_To_Help_Stop_Cord_Cutting.php

The context of his comments is online video.
Comcast is worried that people will ditch cable for streaming tv/video.
What he really wants is Comcast Cable on the web.
Keeping the subscribers but moving eyeballs (and ad dollars) to the web.

They call it "TV Everywhere" and there was apparently a press conference about it in June:
The top google result: http://newteevee.com/2009/06/23/what-you-need-to-know-about-tv-everywhere/

I was all ready to pop out a funny, pithy comment like "Cable Consumer Suggests Changing Cable Exec", but decided to RTFA (yeah, stupid me, here, let me turn in my geek card ...), when I realized that it's just a bunch of manufactured hype. The Techdirt article that the Slashdot article is based on is based on is a piece of crap. Here's a link to the original article rather than the Techdirt regurgitation.

I get the feeling this guy is being quoted somewhat out of context. Techdirt goes on a rant about how the cable companies need to develop new business models, not just beat up consumers. From a quick glance at the www.broadcastingcable.com article, it appears that he's saying that if cable doesn't evolve their business models, they'll bet run over by internet-based content providers. The original article discussed targeted ad content and better-than-Nielsen viewing measurement as future directions cable could move in to improve their business model. So, yeah, the Techdirt guy has his head up his ass.

Now, with that being said, I'm sure that whatever "new" business models the cable companies dream up will largely consist of overcharging consumers, providing crappy service, and extending DRM tentacles into everything they touch, and hence won't really be seen as a win here on Slashdot, and certainly won't be all that different from their current customer abuse.

I disagree with your disagreement. If that were true, then why are DVD sales dramatically declining?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/190848-DVD_Backend_Is_Dwindling.php?
http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11879.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12042007/business/dvd_isaster_sales_806649.htm
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Sales-Decline-Portend-Possible-DVD-Doomsday-2110.html

Meanwhile, digital sales of video content are on the rise:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS148561+29-Aug-2008+BW20080829
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1621/125/

I'll grant you that online sales of video content is still a developing market. But it is a market that is clearly putting a dent into the traditional distribution model of DVDs.

I think your confusion stems from far too narrow a view of the market. You're looking at Bluray discs and noting that they are failing to dislodge DVDs en masse. The reason is that Bluray is not the future. The market is going a radically different direction with its technology.

And because it is dying, as is Grass Valley Group itself.

Let's be clear, reports say that Thomson is in trouble and needs to sell Grass Valley Group to sure up its balance sheet. GVG appears to be doing fine, they are still selling plenty of switchers and servers.

On the server side, GVG recently sold K2 servers to NBCu O&Os, a large FOX installation, PBS station WTTW, and CBS Television Distribution. So I expect to see a lot more GXF in the near future!

Speaking of BS...

if a news organization cannot survive in the market it doesn't deserve to exist.

Given that you were mistakenly leaving NPR out of that statement when you made it, I'm assuming what you mean is that the news organizations a market-focused society deserves are Murdoch outlets.

We don't need another NPR-style organization. News is not Sesame St. for adults.

Sesame Street for adults? Since that sounds like a cheap insult, I'll take it as a sign that you're unfamiliar with NPR. Or Sesame Street, for that matter, given that it's a pretty high-quality program.

But, yeah, back to news. Perhaps you're unaware that the market (via the listener contribution model) overwhelmingly supports NPR, and public funding provides less than 2% of their operating costs. Perhaps you're unaware that people trust NPR and other non-commercial alternatives more than other "market" media. There are even studies which indicate its listeners tend to be better informed. There are also readily observable contrasts in the educational value of the programming and particularly the editorializing... see, for example, CNBC vs just about any episode of the Planet Money podcast.

I'd say that far from "not needing another NPR," we could actually use a lot more of it.

For the record, I generally recognize the authority of the FCC to impose the doctrine at its discretion, but wish that it didn't have that power and instead focused on increasing diversity of ownership.

For what it's worth, Pres. Obama has stated (via press release, at least), and recently reiterated that this is the approach he prefers as well.

From the press release referenced in the first link above: "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

For the record, I oppose reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and I think "media-ownership caps" and "increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets," will probably translate in practice into "pretty much like the fairness doctrine, but with a different name." With that in mind, however, I would have no objection to government oversight intended to ensure that *anybody* wanting to own/operate a media outlet has the chance to do so, and is allowed to succeed or fail in the market on the merits of the content they produce & distribute.

If there aren't enough people in your market who want to listen to the programming you choose to broadcast, then find a better business model.

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat, New Mexico
"Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didn't know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year - but he would certainly like them to. Bingaman told the station he would support reimposition of the regulation - which was rescinded in 1987 - on the station."

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat, Micigan
"Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine: 'I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else - I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.' Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network."

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat, Iowa
"Well, anytime - just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.'"

Former President Bill Clinton, Democrat:
"Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn't reflect economic reality. "I think we need to have either more balance in the programs or some opportunity for people to offer counter-veiling opinions." He said he had not been in favor of getting rid of the fairness doctrine, which the FCC did back in 1987."

Let's not pretend like it's not something they'd like to see to silence at least some of conservative talk radio.

I think that Republicans want the Fairness Doctrine back.

Except Republicans like Senator DeMint oppose the fairness doctrine. Having said that, I also found this saying Franken also opposes it. I also found this which says "Some Democrats have added fuel to the fire by suggesting a fondness for its return, while others say the issue is a straw horse and a distraction." It doesn't name name though.

Falcon

I predict that after the DTV transition, many folks living in fringe reception areas will find their existing (indoor or outdoor) antennas aren't good enough for Digital TV. Digital signals either come in with a perfect picture or no picture at all (cliff effect). People living 50+ miles away who used to get snowy reception with analog will now get no reception with digital. If they are lucky enough to receive any digital stations, they certainly won't get as many Digital TV channels as analog TV channels. Centris predicts 9 million households could have DTV reception issues. I happen to be one of those households with DTV reception problems. I'm located 65 miles north of the Empire State Building (where NY TV signals originate) with an existing UHF/VHF rooftop antenna setup that can pull in all seven of the VHF analog TV stations and one UHF analog station. Some channels have better reception than others (less snow). When I got my digital converter box and hooked it up, I couldn't pick up any Digital TV channels from New York, probably due to the hilly terrain that blocks line of sight signals. This makes UHF reception difficult. I don't buy the argument that rabbit ears can suddenly provide digital-perfect pictures as well as many more channels. It all depends on your distance from the transmitter, the terrain between your home and the broadcast tower, and what kind of antenna you have and where it is mounted. And if you live in a fringe reception area your chances of getting over the air digital reception worsen as you get beyond 50 miles. Cable companies might actually pick up more customers in these fringe areas after the digital transition. As for me, I already signed up for cable.

>>>the TV signal is broadcast on a different part of the radio spectrum, not the one the whitespace device will be on.

Apparently you can not read. TV Band/whitespace Devices will be broadcasting on channels 2 to 51. Same as digital television. See: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/94421-FCC_Approves_White_Spaces_Devices.php

Rome burns as Government fails to run coupon program! 2 million now on waiting list. Government "experts" seek help from pizza industry.

Ok the pizza bit is fictional.. but they *should*.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/162189-DTV_Coupon_Waiting_List_Tops_2_Million.php

According to NTIA figures through Tuesday, Jan. 13, blackog stands at 2,146,455 outstanding requests.
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/14/2009 10:02:00 PM MT

Related:
DTV Coupon Waiting List Grows Again
The DTV Countdown: Complete Coverage of the DTV Transition

As predicted, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration's (NTIA) waiting list for DTV-to-analog converter box coupons has topped 2 million coupons.

According to NTIA figures through Tuesday, Jan. 13, there are 2,146,455 outstanding requests.

NTIA had to put requests on the list after it reached its funding cap, though it can send out more coupons as existing ones expire and money is freed up.

Some 478,000 coupons have come off the waiting list since it was started Jan. 4, but with hundreds of thousands of requests coming in each day, the math doesn't work out for clearing up the backlog.

Congress is now working to free up more funding, with the transition date less than five weeks away, though Congress may change that date in light of the coupon backlog and following a request to do so from President-elect Barack Obama's transition team.

No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.

How about Schumer and Pelosi? Or Sen. Jeff Bingaman? Then there's the fact that it was included as part of the Democratic Party Platform in 2000. Oh, then there's this article quoting Nancy Pelosi's support of it. Illustrious leader Dick Durbin has also advocated its reinstatement.

Just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean there's nobody out to get them.

Sure, the boxes decode an "HD" signal. Yes they scale the HD signal down to 480i. You are right about this.

You are wrong about future pricing of these boxes - history is on my side here.

Here is a press release for a Microtune MT2131 chip that integrates analog NTSC, DTV, and digital cable reception capability onto a single chip:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6311888.html

The chip's cost: $2.40 per chip (and this is from 2006 - they are probably cheaper now). No "magic pixie dust" needed.

Here is an HDTV decoder chip from 2004 that cost $18 back then:

http://www.st.com/stonline/press/news/year2004/p1494p.htm

This article details entire system on a chip designs that fell to $15 at the end of 2007.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n25455222

Don't you think chips like this will enable set top converters for less than $40?

Technology history is full of examples of expensive stuff becoming really cheap, really fast. Why would DTV set top boxes be any different? You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.

Do you honestly believe that prices will go lower than $40 if the government is giving away that amount of money for each box? No businessman with a brain in his skull is going to charge less than $40 until the money dries up.

My post was meant to illustrate that this commoditization process can now occur naturally since the artificial prop holding up pricing has now been removed.

-ted

1. Anybody who says "Democrat representatives" rather than the grammatically correct "Democratic representatives" is a right-winger pushing an agenda, and their assertions should be taken with a grain of salt.
2. "Will not forbid reintroduction of" is a long, long way from "Will reintroduce". She's not saying in that quote that she's going to actually do anything to reinstate the fairness doctrine. What she IS saying is that if some fringe player like Dennis Kucinich decides to grandstand on the issue and introduce a bill that everyone knows will fail, she's not going to waste time and political capital trying to stop him.
3. Pelosi's personal preferences aren't particularly interesting. There's a big difference between "things Nancy Pelosi would like to see" and "things Nancy Pelosi thinks she can get 218 House votes, 60 Senate votes, and the endorsement of the President for." If she doesn't think an issue rises to the latter level, she's not going to push it - why attach your name to something you know would be defeated?
4. And then there's the small matter that regardless of what Pelosi would do, Barack Obama has explicitly rejected reinstating the Fairness Doctrine:
    

   The Illinois senator's top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

   "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to [Broadcasting & Cable magazine] late Wednesday.

   "He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

   So even if hundreds of members of Congress suddenly did a 180 and decided that the Fairness Doctrine deserved to come back, without the President's signature all that's kind of moot. And Obama's not interested in signing, which makes it even less likely that such a bill would ever be introduced in the first place.

All of which reinforces my original point -- that there is no actual effort underway by the Democrats to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine in the next Congress, except in the fevered imaginations of talk radio hosts casting about for something to hate the Democrats for.

Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?

He's just assuming.

According to this, Obama has been facing similar problems. That link comes from an article from the EFF.

Hmm, I don't believe its fair to tie the Democrats to the entertainment industry.

Uhm, with all due respect, what planet are you f-ing from?!

Both the recently deceased Jack Valenti and the current MPAA chairman Dan Glickman are loyal Democrats.

This is the point, where an honest man in your shoes either commits suicide or promises to vote for a Republican as a penance...

Wait till the Dems have full control of Executive and Legislative Branches to bring back the good old Fairness Doctrine. It'll be applied to the the web as well as TV/Radio.

Looking at this article: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html, Obama is on the record against the Fairness Doctrine. If he's elected and changes his mind, he'll have a Democratic House and Senate more than happy to bring it back.

The broadcasts have commercials because the cable subscription fees go to the cable company. Broadcasters only get money if they are a Pay-per view service or a separate subscription (usually movie channels like HBO).

Surely you realize that the cable operators also pay the programming services for the rights to carry their programs? For the most popular channels like ESPN, these fees are quite substantial. Disney reported recently that carriage fees and ESPN ad revenues were "the company's single largest profit driver" in the second quarter of 2008. In fact, Disney has been leveraging ESPN's popularity to force cable operators to carry all its cable networks if they want to carry ESPN.

Sadly, more thorough analysis supports the claim.

It's been a while... I was just reading through some older comments, and I just wanted to assure you that this is far from FUD. If you feel like verifying it, check out the zip code 83843, 84844, 99163, 99164, or 99165 on zap2it - I believe any of those should return correctly. FOX used to be channel 9 - you won't find it anywhere on the list now though.

In a few weeks, this market will have gone almost a full year without FOX. They pulled it off of cable December 14th, and after a week or so of getting static on the channel, they later replaced it with Turner Classic Movies.

In their defense, as a token gesture they did give people a week or two of some free crappy network that played repeats of old football games for a while if I remember right - all the while trying to convince people that they were better off, and that they should pay more money than they already were so that they could continue getting that handout once they took it away.

Here's an old article about the situation. The only thing I've seen since then was a large marketing campaign showing TW workers saying "we apologize for the inconvenience", the football repeats, and some more "yeah, sorry, we suck" ads. Even those have vanished lately.

"The new AT&T posted operating revenue of $15.84 billion during the first quarter of this year, which ended March 31." (2006) http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/25/77742_HN at&tprofit_1.html

"Google reported its second quarter results Thursday, posting revenues of $3.87 billion, up 58% from the same quarter last year and a 6% increase from the first quarter of 2007." (2007) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6461591 .html

So yeah, AT&T's operating revenue is about 4 times that of Google. I could not find data on if/how much AT&T's revenue is rising, though. With Google's pending purchase of DoubleClick, you can expect that to rise... I'm not sure how much DoubleClick's revenue is, as they are no longer a publicly traded company - but back in 2005 they were posting revenues of 300mil and rising. AT&T's different markets are performing differently; stand-alone long distance is way down (over 20%), while Cingular's revenue rose 9% over the quarter. Cingular is the biggest money-maker for AT&T, posting about 9 billion dollars in revenue.

If AT&T wanted to, they could probably out-bid GOOG. But will they? As previously noted, they've recanted their opposition to the regulations. So even if they did win, the regulations might still stand - which can only be a good thing. I wonder what Apple has to say about all this, given their lock-in deals with the iPhone?

Question: Are people sharing music by beaming songs from Zune to Zune? Do you have any way to gauge that?

Bach: People are sharing. When your installed base is a million, the benefits of sharing, frankly, aren't as wide as we hope to see in the future. One of the challenges for us is continuing to build on the install base.

Sharing is a tip of the iceberg of what you can do in the social nature of music, and what you can do when you have a device that you can connect when you're at a Starbucks, when you're at work, when you're at home. That really, over time, will change things, for Zune and for consumers.

I wrote an OpEd piece a while back which touches on this whole issue. I argue that instead of auctioning all of the spectrum, the FCC ought to hold back some of the analog TV stuff for Open Spectrum, and instead auction off naming rights. I still think this is a good idea. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6318921 .html?display=Op+Ed

Nielsen's been working on total measurement for years. Arbitron and VNU (current holders of Nielsen Media research) got together to build Project Apollo. However, because of the trouble Arbitron is having getting its Portable People Meter accredited, Apollo's deploying Nielsen's A/P Meter instead, which I've commented on before.

I work at Nielsen Media at the GTIC facility in Oldsmar FL and I've been hearing about Apollo for many years, but it seems that the rest of the world has only heard about it recently. Project Apollo has been described (internally) as the "holy grail" of measurement, which follows a consumer across every media channel and measures the affect on purchasing habits.

What it looks like Google is doing is a subset of Project Apollo, and even if it could compete on the TV/video side they probably need to license the tech from Nielsen. I'd love to have Google as an ally, but as a competitor I think they'll find Nielsen pretty hard to dislodge.

Gee, maybe the gubment plans to subsidise $349.95 of the cost to offer them at $50.
I knew the people in charge weren't stupid enough to think $50 converters were available.

There's no demand for converters yet, so production is low. CAE folks expect to produce boxes that can sell in the $40 to $50 range. See: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA608668. html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP

I heard this on a radio news station in L.A. a few weeks ago. Here's an online source (3/14/2005) to support that:

"... Indeed, last month, news reports about Adelphia Communications' intention to offer the most graphic form of hardcore porn (XXX, in the adult-entertainment business's calibration of the sex acts depicted) on its cable system in Southern California prompted so much criticism that the company quickly abandoned the plans."

Broadcasting & Cable Editorial about Comcast.

U: phelps123
P: 321joe

(Thanks to BugMeNot for the login credentials)

~Philly

John Kerry doesn't talk about that stuff (except recently when he started cribbing Edwards' speech), but he's the only Dem candidate people remember because his face is plastered all over the TV.

It would be more accurate to say you sound like John Edwards.