That situation was already covered. I think we've gone around this to the point that I still don't see any defects in the approach that aren't dwarfed by similar defects in any other proposal, and therefore this approach is still my preferred solution to the problem.
Great, so you do that. You also have to print any other candidate's letter to the editor.
You also seem to not understand the "equal airtime" clause. Such one-sided coverage has resulted in lawsuits, and you wouldn't own your papers/stations very long. (Don't forget, all broadcast stations are under revocable and expiring charters)
Here's some links to help you understand how binding the equal time laws are. Then note that I'm not advocating changing any of this, except making the purchase of time illegal, because we're removing campaign funding - the entire premise of this thread.
So your strawman argument falls flat on almost every count except for this: yes, media can slant coverage they are required to provide. But, the core issue is whatever coverage they provide must be provided for all, and thus more coverage can only help the "smaller" individuals by making them known.
You can have my job when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Lucky you.:) It took me 4 jobs from the last job I felt that way about to find another one that may approach that level.
To answer lena's other issue, I too work in the US, and I've seen contracts that attempted to extend beyond the employment period. I live in an at-will state, so it's a major uphill battle if the employer wants to try to enforce any of that. The last one I know of that did went after two former employees that took patented code and "created" their own business in direct competition with us. That seemed a pretty straight up and down violation on many levels. I have no idea whether they succeeded though.
Then there's the "invention" clause. Everyone I know ignores it, and several own patents or side businesses running symbiotically with their actual job. Not one has been successfully sued. There's the other side of the coin: if you as a company start suing the creative people that make up the heart and soul of your business, how are you going to survive the drought of new creative talent that will follow the news releases in this day and age of blogs?
I think the only time you're in danger is if you come up with a billion dollar idea. Otherwise, it's not worth their time, and they'll only come after you if you hurt their business directly.
Well, this has been fun. I had to go back 10 posts or so for verification - good job:
Do you have any idea how many ways an incumbent has to get his name in front of his constituents, thus generating name recognition? How does reducing ads reduce the influence of media companies? You said yourself that they can still do endorsements, under your system, media endorsements would carry even more weight. Let's deal with the incorrect statement first. I did not state that the companies can do endorsements. What I did state was:
In short, yes, I want to regulate paid political speech. Newspaper editors can print their opinions on the editorial page as individuals, not as "the newspaper". After all, can CBS start every commercial break during prime time with a "Vote for candidate A" spot? Why are the papers any different?
I don't see anything there that states companies can do anything, or individuals "as companies". I do state that individuals can go the same route as all other individuals and that the media in question has to give equal airtime/space to all candidates.
As for an incumbent getting their name in front of their constituents, how many ways do they really have to do that? Other than official mailings, which I think are a waste of taxpayer money and should be done away with, their options are few based on the guidelines given. Remember, he can't buy airtime/space.
You say that if one candidate is given airtime/space all candidates must be given the same. Do you mean all candidates, or only the ones that would be in the debates that are held? My guess would be that under your system no candidate would get any airtime/space beyond that required by law. So the end result would be that for the most part all we would know about any of the candidates would be what the media companies wanted us to know. That of course leaves out the Internet, for now. The other problem is that the Supreme Court has ruled that regulating the amount a candidate spends is an infringement on free speech. BTW, freedom of speech is meaningless if I can't disseminate my views to a wider audience. All those that are viable candidates that have some set amount of support as shown by obtaining a minimum required amount of signatures. Yes, that favors organized parties with lots of volunteers over lone individuals. If a lone individual cannot drum up enough support among their friends to start a wider campaign, what realistic chance does such a "candidate" have? Heck, even those that have tons of support sometimes fall flat because of some failing. Kinky Friedman who ran for Texas governor as an independent did so badly in the one debate he was in that his polls dropped from near 20% to less than 1%. Sometimes being popular and having a popular platform just can't overcome lack of polish. You could argue that in this case we saw too much of Kinky.
As for the Supreme Court, they're restricted to ruling on laws and even then are not always "right" or there wouldn't be so much controversy about them. You'll note that I stated that all candidates would be given some air time to disseminate their position to the wider audience. Each candidate would be given the same amount of time. I can't think of anything that supports freedom of speech more than that. How they use the alloted time is up to them. It might even create a focus on what their policies are instead of merely attacking their opponent. The possibilities boggle the mind.
The internet is an unusual beast, because you can pretty much publish almost for free. I have no issue saying whatever you want on your own website. Ads and company statements would be held to the same rules as for other media. After all, why should it be any different just because it flows through a bunch of tubes?
I think you misread or are willfully misunderstanding my position.
Removing paid ads effectively removes media companies' influence, especially couple with existing laws already on the books that limits how and what can be said by a candidate. (If a candidate is given airtime/space, all candidates must be given equal airtime/space). My system in no way infringes on free speech. Everyone is free to say whatever they want. The distribution of political speech is regulated though. That is a major difference.
Your concept of minimalistic government on corporations has been tried several times. It's given us the wonders of Standard Oil, the Hearst/Dupont laws, IBM, and now Microsoft. On the other hand, heavy government regulation has given us AT&T, the cable monopolies, and most ironically the current disaster that is broadcast radio/TV (Ironic in that earlier heavy regulation in favor of small business resulted in the exact opposite of where we're headed now.)
As for incumbents getting re-elected... Hmmm, seems that a lot of them are losing lately. But be that as it may, current campaign finance laws have not dealt with the core issue, which is removing campaign finance from the equation. As long as money and the ability to raise it remains in the equation, incumbents really have to trip themselves up to lose. After all, they've got the connections and pre-existing avenues for funding, plus the name recognition with voters. There's a whole lot more to your local incumbent almost automatically getting re-elected than merely where the funds come from. What I propose removes at least 2 of those avenues, and the third, name recognition, is also affected, since you can't buy ad time.
You have members of different parties right there with the ballots. They police each other. Likewise at the counting station. They don't just had the ballots to a room full of republicans or democrats except in some fairly corrupt locations. Naah, that would never happen on a large scale.
I think this is a situation of perspective. From my perspective, if you take the money out of the campaign, the problems solved because businesses can't buy their politicians as easily.
From your perspective, if you take the government out of the economy, the problems solved, because there's no point to buying politicians.
I think mine is doable as it has no negative impact to anyone other than parasitic politicians who live off the corruption of corporate money. I believe your solution, although valid and would work for the given problem, is not doable as the negative impact to the economy and people employed in it would be huge, not to mention a whole slew of other issues it would bring up. Minimalistic government to that extent is an idealistic utopia considering the world today.
So, no government regulations on working conditions? or drugs? or food? etc?
The regulations I was talking about are the ones that cost businesses and individuals money or that make individuals or businesses money. If we reduce the amount of impact the government has on the economy, we will reduce the incentive to spend money to get people elected. People spend so much on campaigns because the economic consequences of government actions are so great. I was only discussing the issue as regards to political campaigns. You're extending far beyond campaigns to general government.
The only momentum Sony had was with PS3s. When the sales of the platform plateaued and dropped off, their growth potential followed suit. It's been a year, and BD has decreasing potential, while HDDVD has increasing potential. There's also the bit about exclusives. Check out Underworld: Evolution on HD DVD as one example for why people are jumping on the HD DVD bandwagon. A movie, even in HD, doesn't need over 30GB of space.
But besides all that, I just dislike Sony and Sony's practices. Their equipment quality has gone far far downhill, and the practices of their content arm can at best be described as despicably illegal. So I buy as little of Sony anything as I can, which equals just about '0' these days.
In short, yes, I want to regulate paid political speech. Newspaper editors can print their opinions on the editorial page as individuals, not as "the newspaper". After all, can CBS start every commercial break during prime time with a "Vote for candidate A" spot? Why are the papers any different?
Does this prevent a candidate from printing his own schlop? Nope. Can he post it everywhere he wants? Not without breaking laws where I live.
I agree with your last statement though - cut down the amount of government regulations. You only need 2: 1) you can't buy ad time, and 2) paid air time/print space must be balanced between all candidates that want the time/space. I think those two will in and of themselves cut down on the amount of money in political campaigns, because money no longer is the driver. It also doesn't trample any freedoms.
You police the intent of the donor by removing the ability to donate.
Have candidates get their petitions signed. Get on the ballot. Have debates and individual presentations on PBS/network TV (the latter are under charters that require "public service" and I can think of no better service than to televise at least presidential debates and presentations). No ads, except ads for the debates/presentations. (Something would have to be worked out as to who can do "presentations", but something along the lines of getting your required petitions within a state seems reasonable for that state to air a specific presentation).
Either case just lays out the core problem with DRM: it doesn't work. It's the law(s) that worry people, and that's really the only disincentive. DRM is actually an incentive to break the current law as established in the DMCA, just to exercise your fair rights as understood until the corporate loved DMCA was passed.
To spell it out - these are OLPC PCs, they're not exactly top of the line performance beasts. If they already have software, and the Windows OS to run it on, odds are it will continue to run on that hardware as it will outperform the OLPC machine running even XP, and certainly Vista.
OLPCs are not configured to run Vista, or even XP, well.
Primaries only exist for 1 party or the other. You still wind up with only 2 choices when it counts. No more, no matter how much "3rd party" crap supposedly exists.
DHS to change agency name to Ministry of Love. That would make DoD the Ministry of Peace. The media would be the Ministry of Truth. And the Ministry of Plenty would be... The IRS
And if part of the 'bribe' is ifnorming Nigeria about all the software that -won't- run on Mandriva but will run on Windows? Maybe they've already GOT some of that software, and they don't want to have to spend money replacing it as well. Wait, they've already got Windows only software but no windows????
He's right: You don't know the full details. It's pointless to go off on a witchhunt without knowing what really happened. QED
Unfortunately, I don't get Verizon service. SBC/AT&T's DSL offering was about 3 times the maximum distance to the pop, despite living within a couple miles of the Telecom Corridor in a wholly newly developed area (maximum house age on this side of the corridor is about 15 years old)
Vinyl is damaged quite easily. Damage is just tolerated better (a scratch comes out as a pop/hiss which may even be hidden by the underlying hiss of the record so you just don't notice it.) CD scratches, OTOH, can make a disk not play. However, if a CD is repaired (which they can be as long as it's only the plastic that's scratched) you'll get perfect sound back out of it.
I have quite a few CDs that are 23 years old, and I have LPs that date back at least 40 years. The LPs, without a single exception, all sound pretty badly compared to CD sound: the baseline noise is audible, there's constant hiss, the highs are muted, and just generally everything sounds like it's being listened to through one of those furry mikes in the wind (you know, like on news casts during storms where the ambient sound deadening microphone cover actually adds to the background noise?) Just in case you're thinking cheap record player: it's a Pioneer 450 DL with a new Shure Type IV cartridge, and I have a replacement new Shure Type IV sitting in the closet. So no, I won't buy the "it's your equipment". It's also been played through both a mid-level Denon 3803 AV system and a high end "old" Pioneer Receiver and a Sansui 5100, all with 0.05% THDs.
The truth is: LPs sound like crap. The pressing process invariably leaves irregularities in the grooves that cause "noise". There are those that prefer the distortion caused by LPs. I have one acquaintance who loves the "warm" LP sound. He also has segmented hearing loss and can't hear the higher pitched hiss, and listens at significantly louder levels than I do. This is relevant because Higher volumes tend to wash out the ability to hear the noise, sort of like strobe/flood lights wash out subtle variations in color.
If a CD sounds "worse" than an LP, then that can be attributed solely to the lack of skill of those creating the master. I have several examples of CDs where the masters were created to compensate for LPs lower ability to recreate highs, and they sound tinny as hell on CD as they weren't remastered for digital media. It's the one time where my graphic equalizer settings actually look like a terraced hill from left to right.
what do I dislike about TW? Where to start? And note, I'm solely an internet user. Let's see, how about their high prices for flaky "broadband" with minimal upload capabilities ($60/month with taxes and fees in my area), connections that lag so much that VPNs or other lag sensitive applications actually disconnect or the fact that their network just goes down for an hour or two or more at sporadic intervals.
Then let's go to their "services". I quote that, because TW has, without a doubt, the worst designed website in the world if you actually want to get any information whatsoever about your account, your bill, or even your profile settings. The only "service" TW provides is pimping ads. Managing your email profile through their website should be considered cruel and unusual torture. Finding information about how to, for instance, upload web pages/images to your web space should land them in jail. Their web based email application is so lame, I was actually pining for Comcast to come back and take over the network again. (No more need be said about that)
Then there's their analog cable service: wow, are the signals bad. They're so bad I actually compared the signal to that received by a set of rabbit ears and the rabbit ears were better (I'm over 30 miles from the antennas to boot). If their analog signal is that bad, why bother with a crappy set top box, esp when my neighbors signal wasn't much better in the digital realm? Dish was my provider for the past 7 years, but AT&T's uverse is now available, and even though there's numerous issues with their service and the set top box, they're mostly annoyances that don't affect me thus I'll probably go ahead and switch to them because the cost drops significantly and I get more channels, of which I actually want a couple. In a year, when the deals run out, I'll probably reconsider going back to Dish, depending on the remaining channel selection and whether they've fixed just a single issue.
BTW, OTA HD has been far better PQ than any service's provided HD feeds.
When they started going with those damn distracting flash-bulb like ads I no longer felt badly about killing them. Combined with the only secure browser is a no-scripting by default browser....
Slashdot Mirror
That situation was already covered. I think we've gone around this to the point that I still don't see any defects in the approach that aren't dwarfed by similar defects in any other proposal, and therefore this approach is still my preferred solution to the problem.
Great, so you do that. You also have to print any other candidate's letter to the editor.
You also seem to not understand the "equal airtime" clause. Such one-sided coverage has resulted in lawsuits, and you wouldn't own your papers/stations very long. (Don't forget, all broadcast stations are under revocable and expiring charters)
Here's some links to help you understand how binding the equal time laws are. Then note that I'm not advocating changing any of this, except making the purchase of time illegal, because we're removing campaign funding - the entire premise of this thread.
So your strawman argument falls flat on almost every count except for this: yes, media can slant coverage they are required to provide. But, the core issue is whatever coverage they provide must be provided for all, and thus more coverage can only help the "smaller" individuals by making them known.
To answer lena's other issue, I too work in the US, and I've seen contracts that attempted to extend beyond the employment period. I live in an at-will state, so it's a major uphill battle if the employer wants to try to enforce any of that. The last one I know of that did went after two former employees that took patented code and "created" their own business in direct competition with us. That seemed a pretty straight up and down violation on many levels. I have no idea whether they succeeded though.
Then there's the "invention" clause. Everyone I know ignores it, and several own patents or side businesses running symbiotically with their actual job. Not one has been successfully sued. There's the other side of the coin: if you as a company start suing the creative people that make up the heart and soul of your business, how are you going to survive the drought of new creative talent that will follow the news releases in this day and age of blogs?
I think the only time you're in danger is if you come up with a billion dollar idea. Otherwise, it's not worth their time, and they'll only come after you if you hurt their business directly.
I don't see anything there that states companies can do anything, or individuals "as companies". I do state that individuals can go the same route as all other individuals and that the media in question has to give equal airtime/space to all candidates.
As for an incumbent getting their name in front of their constituents, how many ways do they really have to do that? Other than official mailings, which I think are a waste of taxpayer money and should be done away with, their options are few based on the guidelines given. Remember, he can't buy airtime/space. You say that if one candidate is given airtime/space all candidates must be given the same. Do you mean all candidates, or only the ones that would be in the debates that are held? My guess would be that under your system no candidate would get any airtime/space beyond that required by law. So the end result would be that for the most part all we would know about any of the candidates would be what the media companies wanted us to know. That of course leaves out the Internet, for now. The other problem is that the Supreme Court has ruled that regulating the amount a candidate spends is an infringement on free speech. BTW, freedom of speech is meaningless if I can't disseminate my views to a wider audience. All those that are viable candidates that have some set amount of support as shown by obtaining a minimum required amount of signatures. Yes, that favors organized parties with lots of volunteers over lone individuals. If a lone individual cannot drum up enough support among their friends to start a wider campaign, what realistic chance does such a "candidate" have? Heck, even those that have tons of support sometimes fall flat because of some failing. Kinky Friedman who ran for Texas governor as an independent did so badly in the one debate he was in that his polls dropped from near 20% to less than 1%. Sometimes being popular and having a popular platform just can't overcome lack of polish. You could argue that in this case we saw too much of Kinky.
As for the Supreme Court, they're restricted to ruling on laws and even then are not always "right" or there wouldn't be so much controversy about them. You'll note that I stated that all candidates would be given some air time to disseminate their position to the wider audience. Each candidate would be given the same amount of time. I can't think of anything that supports freedom of speech more than that. How they use the alloted time is up to them. It might even create a focus on what their policies are instead of merely attacking their opponent. The possibilities boggle the mind.
The internet is an unusual beast, because you can pretty much publish almost for free. I have no issue saying whatever you want on your own website. Ads and company statements would be held to the same rules as for other media. After all, why should it be any different just because it flows through a bunch of tubes?
I think you misread or are willfully misunderstanding my position.
Removing paid ads effectively removes media companies' influence, especially couple with existing laws already on the books that limits how and what can be said by a candidate. (If a candidate is given airtime/space, all candidates must be given equal airtime/space). My system in no way infringes on free speech. Everyone is free to say whatever they want. The distribution of political speech is regulated though. That is a major difference.
Your concept of minimalistic government on corporations has been tried several times. It's given us the wonders of Standard Oil, the Hearst/Dupont laws, IBM, and now Microsoft. On the other hand, heavy government regulation has given us AT&T, the cable monopolies, and most ironically the current disaster that is broadcast radio/TV (Ironic in that earlier heavy regulation in favor of small business resulted in the exact opposite of where we're headed now.)
As for incumbents getting re-elected... Hmmm, seems that a lot of them are losing lately. But be that as it may, current campaign finance laws have not dealt with the core issue, which is removing campaign finance from the equation. As long as money and the ability to raise it remains in the equation, incumbents really have to trip themselves up to lose. After all, they've got the connections and pre-existing avenues for funding, plus the name recognition with voters. There's a whole lot more to your local incumbent almost automatically getting re-elected than merely where the funds come from. What I propose removes at least 2 of those avenues, and the third, name recognition, is also affected, since you can't buy ad time.
It works like this.
You have members of different parties right there with the ballots. They police each other.
Likewise at the counting station. They don't just had the ballots to a room full of republicans or democrats except in some fairly corrupt locations. Naah, that would never happen on a large scale.
I think this is a situation of perspective. From my perspective, if you take the money out of the campaign, the problems solved because businesses can't buy their politicians as easily.
From your perspective, if you take the government out of the economy, the problems solved, because there's no point to buying politicians.
I think mine is doable as it has no negative impact to anyone other than parasitic politicians who live off the corruption of corporate money. I believe your solution, although valid and would work for the given problem, is not doable as the negative impact to the economy and people employed in it would be huge, not to mention a whole slew of other issues it would bring up. Minimalistic government to that extent is an idealistic utopia considering the world today.
The regulations I was talking about are the ones that cost businesses and individuals money or that make individuals or businesses money. If we reduce the amount of impact the government has on the economy, we will reduce the incentive to spend money to get people elected. People spend so much on campaigns because the economic consequences of government actions are so great. I was only discussing the issue as regards to political campaigns. You're extending far beyond campaigns to general government.
I prefer a consortium to a single entity holding the reins of what is a consumer product.
A single entity is much more likely to bend customers over. A diverse consortium has too many opinions to usually agree to anything too drastic.
The only momentum Sony had was with PS3s. When the sales of the platform plateaued and dropped off, their growth potential followed suit. It's been a year, and BD has decreasing potential, while HDDVD has increasing potential. There's also the bit about exclusives. Check out Underworld: Evolution on HD DVD as one example for why people are jumping on the HD DVD bandwagon. A movie, even in HD, doesn't need over 30GB of space.
But besides all that, I just dislike Sony and Sony's practices. Their equipment quality has gone far far downhill, and the practices of their content arm can at best be described as despicably illegal. So I buy as little of Sony anything as I can, which equals just about '0' these days.
I've read the rest of the comment thread.
In short, yes, I want to regulate paid political speech. Newspaper editors can print their opinions on the editorial page as individuals, not as "the newspaper". After all, can CBS start every commercial break during prime time with a "Vote for candidate A" spot? Why are the papers any different?
Does this prevent a candidate from printing his own schlop? Nope. Can he post it everywhere he wants? Not without breaking laws where I live.
I agree with your last statement though - cut down the amount of government regulations. You only need 2: 1) you can't buy ad time, and 2) paid air time/print space must be balanced between all candidates that want the time/space. I think those two will in and of themselves cut down on the amount of money in political campaigns, because money no longer is the driver. It also doesn't trample any freedoms.
You police the intent of the donor by removing the ability to donate.
Have candidates get their petitions signed. Get on the ballot. Have debates and individual presentations on PBS/network TV (the latter are under charters that require "public service" and I can think of no better service than to televise at least presidential debates and presentations). No ads, except ads for the debates/presentations. (Something would have to be worked out as to who can do "presentations", but something along the lines of getting your required petitions within a state seems reasonable for that state to air a specific presentation).
It's radical. It would work.
Either case just lays out the core problem with DRM: it doesn't work. It's the law(s) that worry people, and that's really the only disincentive. DRM is actually an incentive to break the current law as established in the DMCA, just to exercise your fair rights as understood until the corporate loved DMCA was passed.
yes, but the problem with that is that the potential pool has already been whittled down to something I don't support in both cases.
In short, I'd rather vote for something than against something, except the latter has been my only option for the past 12 years.
And you got marked insightful....
To spell it out - these are OLPC PCs, they're not exactly top of the line performance beasts. If they already have software, and the Windows OS to run it on, odds are it will continue to run on that hardware as it will outperform the OLPC machine running even XP, and certainly Vista.
OLPCs are not configured to run Vista, or even XP, well.
Primaries only exist for 1 party or the other. You still wind up with only 2 choices when it counts. No more, no matter how much "3rd party" crap supposedly exists.
Unfortunately, I don't get Verizon service. SBC/AT&T's DSL offering was about 3 times the maximum distance to the pop, despite living within a couple miles of the Telecom Corridor in a wholly newly developed area (maximum house age on this side of the corridor is about 15 years old)
Somewhere, in a marketing database somewhere, sits:
Elmer Fudd
Too bad you didn't go for Terabithia, RI, 90210. (I mean, why stop at fake city names?:)22 Acacia Avenue
San Antonio, RI, 90210
Cool song on a great album.
Vinyl is damaged quite easily. Damage is just tolerated better (a scratch comes out as a pop/hiss which may even be hidden by the underlying hiss of the record so you just don't notice it.) CD scratches, OTOH, can make a disk not play. However, if a CD is repaired (which they can be as long as it's only the plastic that's scratched) you'll get perfect sound back out of it.
I have quite a few CDs that are 23 years old, and I have LPs that date back at least 40 years. The LPs, without a single exception, all sound pretty badly compared to CD sound: the baseline noise is audible, there's constant hiss, the highs are muted, and just generally everything sounds like it's being listened to through one of those furry mikes in the wind (you know, like on news casts during storms where the ambient sound deadening microphone cover actually adds to the background noise?) Just in case you're thinking cheap record player: it's a Pioneer 450 DL with a new Shure Type IV cartridge, and I have a replacement new Shure Type IV sitting in the closet. So no, I won't buy the "it's your equipment". It's also been played through both a mid-level Denon 3803 AV system and a high end "old" Pioneer Receiver and a Sansui 5100, all with 0.05% THDs.
The truth is: LPs sound like crap. The pressing process invariably leaves irregularities in the grooves that cause "noise". There are those that prefer the distortion caused by LPs. I have one acquaintance who loves the "warm" LP sound. He also has segmented hearing loss and can't hear the higher pitched hiss, and listens at significantly louder levels than I do. This is relevant because Higher volumes tend to wash out the ability to hear the noise, sort of like strobe/flood lights wash out subtle variations in color.
If a CD sounds "worse" than an LP, then that can be attributed solely to the lack of skill of those creating the master. I have several examples of CDs where the masters were created to compensate for LPs lower ability to recreate highs, and they sound tinny as hell on CD as they weren't remastered for digital media. It's the one time where my graphic equalizer settings actually look like a terraced hill from left to right.
what do I dislike about TW? Where to start? And note, I'm solely an internet user. Let's see, how about their high prices for flaky "broadband" with minimal upload capabilities ($60/month with taxes and fees in my area), connections that lag so much that VPNs or other lag sensitive applications actually disconnect or the fact that their network just goes down for an hour or two or more at sporadic intervals.
Then let's go to their "services". I quote that, because TW has, without a doubt, the worst designed website in the world if you actually want to get any information whatsoever about your account, your bill, or even your profile settings. The only "service" TW provides is pimping ads. Managing your email profile through their website should be considered cruel and unusual torture. Finding information about how to, for instance, upload web pages/images to your web space should land them in jail. Their web based email application is so lame, I was actually pining for Comcast to come back and take over the network again. (No more need be said about that)
Then there's their analog cable service: wow, are the signals bad. They're so bad I actually compared the signal to that received by a set of rabbit ears and the rabbit ears were better (I'm over 30 miles from the antennas to boot). If their analog signal is that bad, why bother with a crappy set top box, esp when my neighbors signal wasn't much better in the digital realm? Dish was my provider for the past 7 years, but AT&T's uverse is now available, and even though there's numerous issues with their service and the set top box, they're mostly annoyances that don't affect me thus I'll probably go ahead and switch to them because the cost drops significantly and I get more channels, of which I actually want a couple. In a year, when the deals run out, I'll probably reconsider going back to Dish, depending on the remaining channel selection and whether they've fixed just a single issue.
BTW, OTA HD has been far better PQ than any service's provided HD feeds.
Do you think Aunt Tilly installed the app in the first place?
When they started going with those damn distracting flash-bulb like ads I no longer felt badly about killing them. Combined with the only secure browser is a no-scripting by default browser....