Democracy is a Tyranny of the majority (2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner - goodbye sheep). Of course the Founders didn't want that. They remembered what happened to Socrates when the Athenian Democracy voted to kill him, simply because they didn't like his public speeches.
Instead they wanted to create Rule by Law, which would protect the individual from being crushed by the majority. The Law (constitution) obliges the Nobility to behave itself by limiting their power to just a few express items. It's a Republic not a democracy.
The Supreme Court made the mistake of thinking Corporations have the same rights as human beings. They don't. The people inside the corporation have rights, but the actual corporation has no more natural, innate rights than a tree or rock.
Yeah because the wireless spectrum is limitless. Plenty of room for growth./end sarcasm. Wired service is better and there's no limit to how many spectrums you can have (1 whole spectrum per cable).
Why would you need to dig-up anything? A 100-fiber or 50-fiber bundle would fit through the existing underground pipes. For example Verizon didn't have to dig anything when they upgraded my coworker from DSL to FiOS.
You forget that broadcast TV extends across a 200 mile radius. In that context 18 channels is not a lot. For example Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Baltimore, and Washington DC are all part of the same region, and they must all share those channels in such a way that they don't overlap. So really it's just 4-5 channels each, and that's not enough to carry all the networks.
>>>How many broadcast networks do you guys get?
ABC CBS FOX NBC CW PBS PBSarts PBSworld PBSkids MyNetTV Univision Telefutura TBN ION Wellness Channel thisTV movie channel Retro Network Global (foreign language shows/movies) Link (foreign news) MiND (mostly educational) JCTV Smile-of-a-Child Network Qubo IONlife
plus 9 independents showing syndicated shows (Rome, Star Trek, Deadliest Catch, etc) and movies
Yes well, this is why the idea of Constitutional government was invented in the 1600s - to shackle the nobility and only allow them to exercise a FEW limited powers. All other powers would be reserved to the People (where all legitimate authority lies):
The People (top) | Member State Constitution (a few limited powers) | Member State Government (shackled by the constitution) | US Constitution (a few limited powers) | US Government (bottom)
>>>they aren't exclusive franchises they are statewide franchises
If the franchise agreement Comcast signs with the member state (Michigan, France, or whoever) gives them sole control over cable TV across that whole area, how is that not "exclusive"?
THESE statewide-granted monopolies and the recent (yesterday) decision to eliminate channels 31 to 51 on broadcast television is telling me that the Nobility are no longer serving the People. They are serving the corporations. ----- For digital television 2-6 are worthless (as people trying to watch WPVI6 can attest). And channels 14-20(?) are reserved for land mobile. So what's really left is 7-13 and 21-31 - simply not enough room for all the networks, especially in high population areas like the I95 corridor and east coast.
And again to reiterate: We're talking about going from FREE television to ~$1000/year wireless internet television. In other words damaging the people. The FCC and White House are no longer serving us - they are serving the bottom line of ATT, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations.
And now I read this nonsense about Michigan and other states giving exclusive monopolies to Comcast and other megacorps. Unbelievable.
Have the city of Detroit run 100-fiber bundles under all the streets, and then offer to lease 1 fiber per television or internet company. Just imagine: Customers would be able to choose from Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Time-Warner or Cablevision or whatever. True competition. True choice.
Yet another person who didn't bother to read the fucking article. Detroit/Comcast did NOT sign a new contract. The old 1985 agreement is still in full force (according to Detroit) whereas Comcast claims a Michigan law nullified the contract. Detroit's argument is that Michigan has no power to nullify contracts (per the MI Constitution). I think Detroit is correct.
Clearly you didn't read enough of the fucking article, because the real issue is that Detroit's contract requires Comcast to provide free cable to their schools, public buildings, and other benefits, in exchange for being granted a monopoly within the city. On the flip side Comcast claims it no longer has to provide those freebies thanks to a 2007 Michigan law. Detroit's argument is that the MI Law violates the MI Constitution, and as far as I can tell, Detroit is correct.
Comcast could solve this issue, without cost, simply by honoring the Detroit Contract they signed rather than ignoring it.
As for "shaking down" I pretty much hate comcast right now. My brother's analog comcast was $65 when discontinued, and raised to $85 digital cable. Difference? Analog cable was a flat fee regardless how many TVs you had, where digital charges $5 per set. Per month. I call that GREED on the part of comcast.
I wonder if you'd still be praising the government if you were won of the Americans that was forced into a concentration camp (during WW2). Or one of the blacks that was experimented upon with radiation during the 1950s and 60s. Or one of the early Suffragettes (Alice Paul) who got imprisoned just because you carried a sign that read "Women Have the Right to Vote" (1917).
You say we chose the government but we have no more choice than a serf can choose his manor lord. It's illusion and you've been duped. Even when we kick-out a former incumbent, all we've done is replace the Old tyrant with a New tyrant who continues the same policies. (Or different policies but just as anti-freedom.)
You are like the old house slave who loved his master, even as he was treated like a dog. And then you go-out and tell the field slaves they should be happy.
(whoosh). I was negating the previous claim by another poster. He claimed that TV companies (NBC, FOX, et cetera) and local stations get channels 2 through 51 for free. That's false. Not only is there an annual lease (putting over 1 billion dollars in the People's treasury), but there's also societal obligations that must be provided Free of charge to the citizens, like X hours of educational programming, emergency alerts, and so on.
Also WB and UPN didn't technically go bankrupt because they merged and reorganized their debt. However if they had not merged they would have died within a year. The combined debt load was approximately 2 billion and bankruptcy (inability to repay loans) was not far away. ----- Now the new company CW is also heading towards bankruptcy as it sinks deeper and deeper into debt. NBC is losing tons of money as is FOX Broadcast.
And finally there's the viewpoint of the local station. I was just reading an official FCC report from an Anchorage Alaska station that their antenna is barely adequate to provide coverage for the city, and they'd like to upgrade it, but they can't afford to buy a second antenna. People talk as if these networks and station rake-in tons of money, but they are actually sinking.
Correct. It's similar to how you never see Congressman Ron Paul on MSNBC. They figure if they don't put him on the television, people will be unaware of his pro-shrink the government viewpoint. It's bias via omission - pretend the other side doesn't exist. Factcheck does the same thing.
Or you could just vote Libertarian-republican, like Ron Paul. He and others like him would restore our rights, repeal the Patriot Act, and let us keep the money we earned, instead of swiping it from our wallets and giving it to the lazy bum down the street.
SOCIALISM:
You work your ass off earning money. I sit here at home and take it from you. Thanks sucker.;-)
Can I get a job there? I'm sure I'd enjoy the work.
But seriously, I wish people would stop overestimating porn's influence. Its annual revenue is less than 1% of total internet revenue. Its perceived impact on the world (or technology) is no more real than a 12 inch long penis, or the "18 year old" models that are actually 27.
As I keep telling people - there is only ONE wireless spectrum, but wired spectrum is limitless (just keep running more cables). Wireless is a limited resource and should not be squandered. Wired should be the preferred method of expansion of the internet. I can understand average people and politicians not understanding this, but engineers and technicians should be able to grasp it easily.
120 megahertz taken from broadcasters equals the loss of TV channels 31 to 51. Many stations would be forced off the air.
>>>Why in hell would anyone want to tax banks? So you can pay higher fees for your account.
I think you oversimplify. If you tax the people directly then ALL the money comes from the people, but if you tax the corporations then only about half the money comes from the people (customer fees). The other half comes out of CEOs and other wealthy managers' pockets (i.e. they get paid lower salaries). So yes taxing the corporation is a better result for the average citizen.
Of course you need to be careful not to tax too high, else the corporation will pack-up and move to India.
Should I dust-off my old Usenet BBS and go back to radio based packet-switching forums? I hear alt.2600 is still active for hackers and other anti-government types.;-)
>>>The higher the frequency, the higher the potential data rate. However, the higher the frequency, the further apart the "channels" need to be to prevent them from interfering with each other. >>>
I'm curious where you got this info. 500 megahertz is 500 megahertz and carries the same amount of data regardless where you put it. That's why a TV channel, whether it's located at 50 Mhz or 1 Gigahertz, still carries the same amount of data (~19 Mbit/s). The shifting up or down makes no difference. ----- Similarly the spacing is the same whether that TV station is in Very Lo VHF or Very High UHF. There's no need to increase the separation. .
>>>different frequencies have different propagation/absorption characteristics.
Well that's true. Shortwaves get disrupted faster than longwaves. It's why submarines switched from the high-frequency "pings" of World War 2 to the low-frequency "pong" of the modern era. It's also why VHF TV can travel 100+ miles across flat areas like North Dakota, but UHF barely makes it 60.
The government is not "us" or "we". The government is a separate entity - a necessary evil to maintain peace, not something to love and worship. I certainly don't consider myself part of the government. For example I would never have fined myself $950 a year as punishment for not having hospital insurance. Only a separate entity would hatch such a stupid plan that is anti-choice.
"As government grows, individual liberty shrinks." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party
One of my local stations sends-out 5 channels in its assigned space. That's 1 program per 1.2 megahertz and it looks a heck of a lot better than hulu.com streaming via my DSL. Broadcast TV is very efficient, not wasteful. It sends approximately 10 channels per region at ~20 Mbit/s each. That's ~200 Mbit/s total audiovideo programming sent to millions of people. Free.
The same service by internet would require a major rewiring project, lots of manhours for digging, and cost the viewers about $100 a month.
So the FCC tells us to upgrade to HD Radios and then switches off the HD-FM band? Unlikely. Unless they are total assholes. Besides FM only represents 20 megahertz of the supposed 220 Mhz that broadcasters are supposed to give up.
>>>I don't know about you, but I LIKE having unlimited cell phone + data service for under $50/month
And then there's me who doesn't use his cellphone at all. It's nice to have when my car breaks-down but given the choice between losing my cell and losing my free TV, I'd give up the cellphone. The TV gives me hours of free shows, movies, and weather/news updates. The cellphone gives me a 20 cent per minute bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Democracy is a Tyranny of the majority (2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner - goodbye sheep). Of course the Founders didn't want that. They remembered what happened to Socrates when the Athenian Democracy voted to kill him, simply because they didn't like his public speeches.
Instead they wanted to create Rule by Law, which would protect the individual from being crushed by the majority. The Law (constitution) obliges the Nobility to behave itself by limiting their power to just a few express items. It's a Republic not a democracy.
The Supreme Court made the mistake of thinking Corporations have the same rights as human beings. They don't. The people inside the corporation have rights, but the actual corporation has no more natural, innate rights than a tree or rock.
>>>What about towers and point-to-point wireless?
Yeah because the wireless spectrum is limitless. Plenty of room for growth. /end sarcasm. Wired service is better and there's no limit to how many spectrums you can have (1 whole spectrum per cable).
Why would you need to dig-up anything? A 100-fiber or 50-fiber bundle would fit through the existing underground pipes. For example Verizon didn't have to dig anything when they upgraded my coworker from DSL to FiOS.
>>>7-13 and 21-31 is still 18 channels
You forget that broadcast TV extends across a 200 mile radius. In that context 18 channels is not a lot. For example Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Baltimore, and Washington DC are all part of the same region, and they must all share those channels in such a way that they don't overlap. So really it's just 4-5 channels each, and that's not enough to carry all the networks.
>>>How many broadcast networks do you guys get?
ABC
CBS
FOX
NBC
CW
PBS
PBSarts
PBSworld
PBSkids
MyNetTV
Univision
Telefutura
TBN
ION
Wellness Channel
thisTV movie channel
Retro Network
Global (foreign language shows/movies)
Link (foreign news)
MiND (mostly educational)
JCTV
Smile-of-a-Child Network
Qubo
IONlife
plus 9 independents showing syndicated shows (Rome, Star Trek, Deadliest Catch, etc) and movies
>>>When did the nobility EVER serve the people?
Yes well, this is why the idea of Constitutional government was invented in the 1600s - to shackle the nobility and only allow them to exercise a FEW limited powers. All other powers would be reserved to the People (where all legitimate authority lies):
The People (top)
|
Member State Constitution (a few limited powers)
|
Member State Government (shackled by the constitution)
|
US Constitution (a few limited powers)
|
US Government (bottom)
>>>they aren't exclusive franchises they are statewide franchises
If the franchise agreement Comcast signs with the member state (Michigan, France, or whoever) gives them sole control over cable TV across that whole area, how is that not "exclusive"?
THESE statewide-granted monopolies and the recent (yesterday) decision to eliminate channels 31 to 51 on broadcast television is telling me that the Nobility are no longer serving the People. They are serving the corporations. ----- For digital television 2-6 are worthless (as people trying to watch WPVI6 can attest). And channels 14-20(?) are reserved for land mobile. So what's really left is 7-13 and 21-31 - simply not enough room for all the networks, especially in high population areas like the I95 corridor and east coast.
And again to reiterate: We're talking about going from FREE television to ~$1000/year wireless internet television. In other words damaging the people. The FCC and White House are no longer serving us - they are serving the bottom line of ATT, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations.
And now I read this nonsense about Michigan and other states giving exclusive monopolies to Comcast and other megacorps. Unbelievable.
Or even better:
Have the city of Detroit run 100-fiber bundles under all the streets, and then offer to lease 1 fiber per television or internet company. Just imagine: Customers would be able to choose from Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Time-Warner or Cablevision or whatever. True competition. True choice.
Yet another person who didn't bother to read the fucking article. Detroit/Comcast did NOT sign a new contract. The old 1985 agreement is still in full force (according to Detroit) whereas Comcast claims a Michigan law nullified the contract. Detroit's argument is that Michigan has no power to nullify contracts (per the MI Constitution). I think Detroit is correct.
Clearly you didn't read enough of the fucking article, because the real issue is that Detroit's contract requires Comcast to provide free cable to their schools, public buildings, and other benefits, in exchange for being granted a monopoly within the city. On the flip side Comcast claims it no longer has to provide those freebies thanks to a 2007 Michigan law. Detroit's argument is that the MI Law violates the MI Constitution, and as far as I can tell, Detroit is correct.
Comcast could solve this issue, without cost, simply by honoring the Detroit Contract they signed rather than ignoring it.
As for "shaking down" I pretty much hate comcast right now. My brother's analog comcast was $65 when discontinued, and raised to $85 digital cable. Difference? Analog cable was a flat fee regardless how many TVs you had, where digital charges $5 per set. Per month. I call that GREED on the part of comcast.
I wonder if you'd still be praising the government if you were won of the Americans that was forced into a concentration camp (during WW2). Or one of the blacks that was experimented upon with radiation during the 1950s and 60s. Or one of the early Suffragettes (Alice Paul) who got imprisoned just because you carried a sign that read "Women Have the Right to Vote" (1917).
You say we chose the government but we have no more choice than a serf can choose his manor lord. It's illusion and you've been duped. Even when we kick-out a former incumbent, all we've done is replace the Old tyrant with a New tyrant who continues the same policies. (Or different policies but just as anti-freedom.)
You are like the old house slave who loved his master, even as he was treated like a dog. And then you go-out and tell the field slaves they should be happy.
Well we're not happy.
>>>None of those are TV stations.
(whoosh). I was negating the previous claim by another poster. He claimed that TV companies (NBC, FOX, et cetera) and local stations get channels 2 through 51 for free. That's false. Not only is there an annual lease (putting over 1 billion dollars in the People's treasury), but there's also societal obligations that must be provided Free of charge to the citizens, like X hours of educational programming, emergency alerts, and so on.
Also WB and UPN didn't technically go bankrupt because they merged and reorganized their debt. However if they had not merged they would have died within a year. The combined debt load was approximately 2 billion and bankruptcy (inability to repay loans) was not far away. ----- Now the new company CW is also heading towards bankruptcy as it sinks deeper and deeper into debt. NBC is losing tons of money as is FOX Broadcast.
And finally there's the viewpoint of the local station. I was just reading an official FCC report from an Anchorage Alaska station that their antenna is barely adequate to provide coverage for the city, and they'd like to upgrade it, but they can't afford to buy a second antenna. People talk as if these networks and station rake-in tons of money, but they are actually sinking.
Correct. It's similar to how you never see Congressman Ron Paul on MSNBC. They figure if they don't put him on the television, people will be unaware of his pro-shrink the government viewpoint. It's bias via omission - pretend the other side doesn't exist. Factcheck does the same thing.
Or you could just vote Libertarian-republican, like Ron Paul. He and others like him would restore our rights, repeal the Patriot Act, and let us keep the money we earned, instead of swiping it from our wallets and giving it to the lazy bum down the street.
SOCIALISM:
You work your ass off earning money. ;-)
I sit here at home and take it from you.
Thanks sucker.
Can I get a job there? I'm sure I'd enjoy the work.
But seriously, I wish people would stop overestimating porn's influence. Its annual revenue is less than 1% of total internet revenue. Its perceived impact on the world (or technology) is no more real than a 12 inch long penis, or the "18 year old" models that are actually 27.
Yep.
As I keep telling people - there is only ONE wireless spectrum, but wired spectrum is limitless (just keep running more cables). Wireless is a limited resource and should not be squandered. Wired should be the preferred method of expansion of the internet. I can understand average people and politicians not understanding this, but engineers and technicians should be able to grasp it easily.
120 megahertz taken from broadcasters equals the loss of TV channels 31 to 51. Many stations would be forced off the air.
>>>Why in hell would anyone want to tax banks? So you can pay higher fees for your account.
I think you oversimplify. If you tax the people directly then ALL the money comes from the people, but if you tax the corporations then only about half the money comes from the people (customer fees). The other half comes out of CEOs and other wealthy managers' pockets (i.e. they get paid lower salaries). So yes taxing the corporation is a better result for the average citizen.
Of course you need to be careful not to tax too high, else the corporation will pack-up and move to India.
Should I dust-off my old Usenet BBS and go back to radio based packet-switching forums? I hear alt.2600 is still active for hackers and other anti-government types. ;-)
>>>The higher the frequency, the higher the potential data rate. However, the higher the frequency, the further apart the "channels" need to be to prevent them from interfering with each other.
>>>
I'm curious where you got this info. 500 megahertz is 500 megahertz and carries the same amount of data regardless where you put it. That's why a TV channel, whether it's located at 50 Mhz or 1 Gigahertz, still carries the same amount of data (~19 Mbit/s). The shifting up or down makes no difference. ----- Similarly the spacing is the same whether that TV station is in Very Lo VHF or Very High UHF. There's no need to increase the separation.
.
>>>different frequencies have different propagation/absorption characteristics.
Well that's true. Shortwaves get disrupted faster than longwaves. It's why submarines switched from the high-frequency "pings" of World War 2 to the low-frequency "pong" of the modern era. It's also why VHF TV can travel 100+ miles across flat areas like North Dakota, but UHF barely makes it 60.
The government is not "us" or "we". The government is a separate entity - a necessary evil to maintain peace, not something to love and worship. I certainly don't consider myself part of the government. For example I would never have fined myself $950 a year as punishment for not having hospital insurance. Only a separate entity would hatch such a stupid plan that is anti-choice.
"As government grows, individual liberty shrinks." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party
So why doesn't the BBC eliminate their broadcast towers and just send everything via the net?
Because they know they don't have the capacity to do it.
>>>mindbogglingly wide swath of the spectrum
One of my local stations sends-out 5 channels in its assigned space. That's 1 program per 1.2 megahertz and it looks a heck of a lot better than hulu.com streaming via my DSL. Broadcast TV is very efficient, not wasteful. It sends approximately 10 channels per region at ~20 Mbit/s each. That's ~200 Mbit/s total audiovideo programming sent to millions of people. Free.
The same service by internet would require a major rewiring project, lots of manhours for digging, and cost the viewers about $100 a month.
So the FCC tells us to upgrade to HD Radios and then switches off the HD-FM band? Unlikely. Unless they are total assholes. Besides FM only represents 20 megahertz of the supposed 220 Mhz that broadcasters are supposed to give up.
>>>I don't know about you, but I LIKE having unlimited cell phone + data service for under $50/month
And then there's me who doesn't use his cellphone at all. It's nice to have when my car breaks-down but given the choice between losing my cell and losing my free TV, I'd give up the cellphone. The TV gives me hours of free shows, movies, and weather/news updates. The cellphone gives me a 20 cent per minute bill.