Death of OTA Broadcasting

mattk wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
k.net...
The first market that is big enough where COFDM based HD receivers will be
sold using the world standard OTA modulation, DVB-T/H, will be France.
This will be the first time a significant sized market will see the sale
of HD COFDM receivers using the world standard DVB-T. Both Japan and
Australia are limited. Australia by population size, channel size and a
few other peculiarities. Japan just because it is a one country market for
the modulation, Brazil is a not factor so far. France on the other hand is
one of many DVB-T/H countries though the first using it for HD. I expect
to see low priced HD receivers there.


They're already selling MPEG4 HD DVB-T receivers in France;
http://www.fnac.com/Shelf/article.asp?PRID=1852300

I don't know that they're all that low priced though at ?250 each...


Well this is the first out and that would be list price. You get it free
with TNT HD service so they would want to inflate the price to make it
look like a bigger deal possibly.

It includes a card reader, USB-2 connector, network connector, ADSL
connector, works with Mediacenter.

http://www.netgem.com/pdf/netgemGuid...ediacenter.pdf

Maybe we won't see a market price any time soon. I was hoping that there
would be a free OTA HD offering also.

Bob Miller

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:37:20 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:49:30 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
news:[email protected] gma.ca...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable.
Like
you
I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that
people
get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a
thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on
the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to
keep
ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month
for
300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by
staying
home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one
TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What
else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not
made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to
save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until
you
are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never,
ever
heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back
then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV
and
we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell
I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six
the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me
now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or
satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension
skills
my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I
will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of
the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free.
It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and
we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

What part of "OTA" did you not understand?

I understand it perfectly well.

What does this mean?


How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisements as well.

Is this OTA or cable/satellite?
Thumper

It's very simple Thumper. You have a knack for taking something simple
and
making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Let me try to explain it too you again:

In the 70s OTA was paid for by the advertisers and not by the consumer.


It still is.

And what exactly makes you think that I and everyone else are not aware of
that? What is your point exactly IOW?

What is your motivation to post what is obvious to everyone else? It's
not
like anyone disputed the above fact.

In the 80s we all flocked over to Cable and we became the monetary
supporters of it.


My comment is simply trying to convey the fact that I find it ironic
that
even though we are paying for cable and satellite, we are still force
fed
advertisements.


WE are force fed nothing. What we pay for is a different delivery of
signals to the home plus more channels that one cannot receive OTA.
OTA and Cable/satellite are not the same product.

$50+ per month for delivery? I think not.

Your mindset is exactly what the broadcasters want you to think. I do not
see it that way. Fact is, with cable and satelite you are paying for more
than just the delivery so you are out of line by posting something as a
fact
when it is not.

Again, do you work for or own stock in cable or satelite? Makes me
wonder.

In other words the broadcasters are getting the best of both worlds and
we
are paying for it. This is one of the reasons (besides monetary) that I
will go OTA only. It's a matter of pricinpal.


Principle? Do what you want but falsely claiming that you are being
force fed commercials is laughable.

And your counter arguments hold no water and zero logic.
I tend to question your motivation.


Do you understand now?

Yes it's just as I said in the first place.
Thumper

Seems you have an ax to grind with me Mr. Thumper.

Care to clue me in as to what you have up your bum and why you even care
what I think?

Seems to me that you're the one with the agenda here. You bitch about
being force fed commercials when nothing could be further from the
truth. Whom do you think pays for the programs you see on tv? Do you
think they are free? Do you really think that Cable/Satellite should
deliver the same programs free of charge? Who would pay the
additional cost of that delivery? If you don't want to subscribe to
cable then simply don't and stop bitching because they won't deliver
the programming for free.
Thumper

OMFG Are you dense or what? For the record, I could ****ing care less what
the cable company does. Apparently you must be a hypersensitive cable
installer.

We all know that advertising has paid for OTA for ages and still does. Hell
you even reverified that obvious fact with your previous and totally
irrelevant smart ass statement.

Why is the concept of advertisement funded delivery so hard for you to
grasp? Try rubbing two brain cells together for a moment. Maybe that will
help.

And I do not have an agenda. I just want to remind folks that they do have
an alternate choice. You OTOH seem to have some kind of bug up your ass.
And you still have not answered my question: Do you work for or own stock
in cable or satellite? Your silence on this equates to a "yes" AFAIAC.

If you manage to come up with some reasoning, I might be inclined to discuss
this with you further. But for right now you seem to be stuck on stupid.

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article "Gonzo"
writes:

This applies to the U.S. only AFAIK.

My understanding is the feds gave broadcasters a set date to switch to
digital and gave them channels for digital broadcasts.

Currently these channels are being used for analog AFAIK.

These channels are being used for digital, not analog.

Feds also mandated a requirement that broadcasters provide content for
free
OTA in digital HD if they wanted these channels assigned too them (as a
stipulation).

Nope. No requirement of HD. This has been explained in this group
several
times so far this year.

Well I am fairly new to this NG so that explains that, hence my disclaimer.

My previous understanding though was that one digital channel equates to two
analog channels and this is what the broacasters have been feeding us
instead.

Im not that worried though because as we speak I am getting free OTA HD
transmissions.
And this can only get better with time. Once every six months or so I will
rescan all the channels on my HD OTA tuner to see if there are any new
goodies.

I can see digital HD advertisment to play a part here. Let the
MegaCorporations pay for this stuff. They have the money. And if the
broadcasters can spend a million to lobby Washington they they could very
well have invested that same money into their OTA R&D instead of feeding the
fat cats AFAIAC.

We will see.

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Bob Miller wrote:
And don't expect a lot of HD once broadcasters get their cherished must carry
multicast from Congress. After all they have spent many millions on this for
the last seven years.

Typical FUD from Psycho Bob.

Fortunately, like all other Psycho Bob Miller predictions, this is not
likely to come to pass.

Psycho Bob's prediction is for something that is even worse than the old
must-carry, and the FCC has repeatedly rejected it. There is no sign of
the current Congress, nor the candidates seeking to replace the current
Congress, voting to do this.

The broadcasters that are big on multicast are PBS, PAX/i, and the
religious channels. One religious broadcaster here multicasts 5 channels.
I expect that the home shopping channels will join the procession of
sleaze as well.

The mainstream broadcasters are all in HD. They may have one SD
subchannel in addition to their HD, but none of them seems to be
particularly interested in following the sleazy channels for "pack it all
in".

Furthermore, must-carry for multicast is technically absurd. Such a
requirement, if implemented today, would force Seattle area cable and
satellite systems to carry 8 channels of televangelism -- and it looks
like it will shortly become 12 channels.

Now, let's just assume that Psycho Bob is right, and all the broadcasters
are straining at the bit for multicast must-carry so they can dump HD and
cram on separate streams. Seattle has 14 broadcasters (a few more if you
include a few outlying cities). With 5 possible multicast subchannels per
broadcaster, Psycho Bob's prediction is effectively that every cable and
satellite system would have to carry no less than 70 local channels.

Boys and girls, that simply is not going to happen.

Must-carry was originally intended to protect small broadcasters (notably,
the foreign-language broadcasters which served minority communities) from
being excluded from cable and satellite systems. That ended after
extensive abuse by televangelism and home shopping channels that
duplicated what was already carried on national feeds.

For example, DirecTV's Seattle locals do not include the PAX,
televangelist, or home shopping channels. If you tune to "Seattle 33" on
the satellite you'll get the national PAX feed rather than what's actually
broadcasting on 33 in Seattle. Sadly, one home shopping channel is
working on getting on DirecTV (based upon its having a whole two hours of
local-origin programming every Monday morning), but is not actually being
carried.

Remember, whatever Psycho Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!!!!

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article
,
Mark Crispin wrote:

The mainstream broadcasters are all in HD. They may have one SD
subchannel in addition to their HD, but none of them seems to be
particularly interested in following the sleazy channels for "pack it all
in".

Are you kidding? Fox is the poster boy for "pack it all in" to multiple
channels of SD.

And CBS/ABC/NBC et al.? If Fox continues to do it, they'll follow along
like sheep.

They are not following Fox they are leading the charge.

What ever makes the most money wins. Fox may be leading in actual
multicasting now but ALL broadcasters are salivating over the prospect.

CBS/ABC/NBC are the leaders here. It is their money that is carrying the
freight. Have been for years. No secret in the industry.

"In this corner are NBC, CBS, ABC, the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB), and a host of small outfits who want the FCC to pass
a digital "must-carry" rule at their next Open Meeting, scheduled for
Wednesday, June 21st. (That is 2006)

In that corner are the cable companies and cable associations who insist
that they won't be able to handle the volume of new "channels" digital
TV stations will offer, thanks to digital's ability to compress data."

http://www.lasarletter.com/freepage.php?id=200606161

"NBC and CBS executives have argued that cable operators should be
forced to carry every digital signal from local stations, which is the
key point of the “multicast must-carry” debate. The Federal
Communications Commission was expected to pass a digital must-carry
mandate last week, but chairman Kevin Martin pulled the scheduled vote
after failing to gather support from the majority of commissioners."

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6346618.html

I have sat with these guys and their representatives. They want must
carry of multicasting very very bad. Expect pseudo HD at the best. They
can still sell HD to cable and satellite but on the OTA side they will
opt for quantity and HD specials now and then.

And if they get A-VSB working expect simulcast on top of multicasting.
If it works well enough it will stoke the fire for a switch to a modern
modulation and codec also.

Pseudo HD? How about 720P capture, downconvert to 480P, broadcast,
upconvert to 720P? Get rid of the macroblocking because of bit
starvation and have what looks like HD on any set at or less than 42"
and something close above that.

Bob Miller

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article
,
Mark Crispin wrote:

The mainstream broadcasters are all in HD. They may have one SD
subchannel in addition to their HD, but none of them seems to be
particularly interested in following the sleazy channels for "pack it all
in".

Are you kidding? Fox is the poster boy for "pack it all in" to multiple
channels of SD.

And CBS/ABC/NBC et al.? If Fox continues to do it, they'll follow along
like sheep.

One more comment. Why are the big three not doing more multicasting now?
They are staying politically correct till they get multicasting must
carry on the books.

How close are we? The FCC Chairman's Martin thought he had it till the
new kid, a Republican no less, showed different colors at the last
moment. Expect back room work to correct this error soon.

No multicast must carry and ALL must carry will be denied at the Supreme
Court IMO.

Bob Miller

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
ink.net...
mattk wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
k.net...
The first market that is big enough where COFDM based HD receivers will
be sold using the world standard OTA modulation, DVB-T/H, will be
France. This will be the first time a significant sized market will see
the sale of HD COFDM receivers using the world standard DVB-T. Both
Japan and Australia are limited. Australia by population size, channel
size and a few other peculiarities. Japan just because it is a one
country market for the modulation, Brazil is a not factor so far. France
on the other hand is one of many DVB-T/H countries though the first
using it for HD. I expect to see low priced HD receivers there.


They're already selling MPEG4 HD DVB-T receivers in France;
http://www.fnac.com/Shelf/article.asp?PRID=1852300

I don't know that they're all that low priced though at ?250 each...
Well this is the first out and that would be list price. You get it free
with TNT HD service so they would want to inflate the price to make it
look like a bigger deal possibly.

It includes a card reader, USB-2 connector, network connector, ADSL
connector, works with Mediacenter.

http://www.netgem.com/pdf/netgemGuid...ediacenter.pdf

Maybe we won't see a market price any time soon. I was hoping that there
would be a free OTA HD offering also.

Bob Miller

This is a free OTA HD offering; TNT is the name for their OTA service (it's
the initials in French for Digital Terrestrial Television) which is
broadcasting channels in MPEG4 HD from TF1, France Television, Canal+ and M6
to Paris, Marseille and Lyon.

I believe the pay TV operators in France have already been shipping boxes
which may support HD (they have component/HDMI interfaces, just currently
with the HD part of the receiver disabled). France uses MPEG4 for their SD
pay TV channels broadcast OTA.

FWIW there is also now MPEG4 DVB-T HD being broadcast in the UK around
London with a trial service from four broadcasters.

In article "Elmo P. Shagnasty" writes:
In article
,
Mark Crispin wrote:

The mainstream broadcasters are all in HD. They may have one SD
subchannel in addition to their HD, but none of them seems to be
particularly interested in following the sleazy channels for "pack it all
in".

Are you kidding? Fox is the poster boy for "pack it all in" to multiple
channels of SD.

And CBS/ABC/NBC et al.? If Fox continues to do it, they'll follow along
like sheep.


Gee, Fox here has only two channels. The mainstream HD channel, and the
same thing in SD. (What a waste.) The programming is always the same.

The pack it all in folks are the main PBS station, who seem to believe in
quantity over quality.

Alan

Alan wrote:
In article "Elmo P. Shagnasty" writes:
In article
,
Mark Crispin wrote:

The mainstream broadcasters are all in HD. They may have one SD
subchannel in addition to their HD, but none of them seems to be
particularly interested in following the sleazy channels for "pack it all
in".
Are you kidding? Fox is the poster boy for "pack it all in" to multiple
channels of SD.

And CBS/ABC/NBC et al.? If Fox continues to do it, they'll follow along
like sheep.


Gee, Fox here has only two channels. The mainstream HD channel, and the
same thing in SD. (What a waste.) The programming is always the same.

The pack it all in folks are the main PBS station, who seem to believe in
quantity over quality.

Alan
No they are the only ones who do not have to keep their heads down while
multicast must carry is still up in the air.

Once that is settled you will see the same thing on non PBS channels but
less HD and more SD or pseudo HD. IMO.

If broadcasters get multicast must carry you will see a lot of it right
away. If they don't get it things will stay much the same as long as
they see they have a chance.

If they lose multicast must carry definitively expect a lot of multicast
.. If they lose it in the courts you will see a lot of multicast. If they
win multicast must carry you will see a lot of multicast.

With multicast must carry they can sell the good HD to the cable
companies with no need for must carry since the cable companies will
want this content. So broadcasters get this content delivered and they
get paid for it. To also broadcast it in the free and clear would only
be competing with themselves. Every customer that could get their HD
content for free would be a customer that would not be paying them via
cable. They can at the same time make the cable companies take all their
other channels via must carry multicast.

Of course they can't do this now. They would be burned bad by early
adopters and it would impact their chances of getting multicast must carry.

The possible mix is still up in the air especially with the possibility
of A-VSB. This takes a LOT of bits away from the primary signal. Very
costly. With MPEG2 I don't think there will be enough room for even 720P
HD if they have even the bare minimum set aside for A-VSB even using
MPEG4 on the A-VSB segment and only doing SD or less.

That is one horrific possibility. One SD program with 8-VSB and the same
program using MPEG4 with A-VSB. But at least you would have good
reception of one SD program OTA.

With COFDM DVB-T you could switch on the fly to a lower bit rate more
robust mode if for instance a severe storm was causing problems or a
national emergency made the need for a super robust channel a necessity.

What do I expect? Some broadcasters doing the above, others doing
multicasting and selling the HD program to cable but not broadcasting in
HD, others getting together and offering HD with MPEG4 via subscription
while delivering the required SD program in the free and clear with MPEG2.

No current receiver could receive that MPEG4 signal either with 8-VSB or
A-VSB. Everyone talks as if A-VSB and or MPEG4 were somehow compatible
with current receivers since they can still receive the primary signal.
Makes no sense to me.

And then the market will work things out. But it will end up with
everyone doing what makes the most money. That is they will all be doing
the same thing.

With the law for must carry what it is, with multicast must carry being
what I think it will be and with the current law not requiring
broadcasters to deliver HD, something they fought hard for BTW, you
can't count on getting much HD OTA for very long IMO.



Bob Miller

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:26:16 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:37:20 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:49:30 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
news:[email protected] ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
news:[email protected] agma.ca...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable.
Like
you
I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that
people
get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a
thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on
the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to
keep
ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month
for
300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by
staying
home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one
TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What
else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not
made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to
save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until
you
are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never,
ever
heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back
then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV
and
we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell
I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six
the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me
now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or
satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension
skills
my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I
will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of
the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free.
It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and
we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

What part of "OTA" did you not understand?

I understand it perfectly well.

What does this mean?


How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisements as well.

Is this OTA or cable/satellite?
Thumper

It's very simple Thumper. You have a knack for taking something simple
and
making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Let me try to explain it too you again:

In the 70s OTA was paid for by the advertisers and not by the consumer.


It still is.

And what exactly makes you think that I and everyone else are not aware of
that? What is your point exactly IOW?

What is your motivation to post what is obvious to everyone else? It's
not
like anyone disputed the above fact.

In the 80s we all flocked over to Cable and we became the monetary
supporters of it.


My comment is simply trying to convey the fact that I find it ironic
that
even though we are paying for cable and satellite, we are still force
fed
advertisements.


WE are force fed nothing. What we pay for is a different delivery of
signals to the home plus more channels that one cannot receive OTA.
OTA and Cable/satellite are not the same product.

$50+ per month for delivery? I think not.

Your mindset is exactly what the broadcasters want you to think. I do not
see it that way. Fact is, with cable and satelite you are paying for more
than just the delivery so you are out of line by posting something as a
fact
when it is not.

Again, do you work for or own stock in cable or satelite? Makes me
wonder.

In other words the broadcasters are getting the best of both worlds and
we
are paying for it. This is one of the reasons (besides monetary) that I
will go OTA only. It's a matter of pricinpal.


Principle? Do what you want but falsely claiming that you are being
force fed commercials is laughable.

And your counter arguments hold no water and zero logic.
I tend to question your motivation.


Do you understand now?

Yes it's just as I said in the first place.
Thumper

Seems you have an ax to grind with me Mr. Thumper.

Care to clue me in as to what you have up your bum and why you even care
what I think?

Seems to me that you're the one with the agenda here. You bitch about
being force fed commercials when nothing could be further from the
truth. Whom do you think pays for the programs you see on tv? Do you
think they are free? Do you really think that Cable/Satellite should
deliver the same programs free of charge? Who would pay the
additional cost of that delivery? If you don't want to subscribe to
cable then simply don't and stop bitching because they won't deliver
the programming for free.
Thumper

OMFG Are you dense or what? For the record, I could ****ing care less what
the cable company does. Apparently you must be a hypersensitive cable
installer.

We all know that advertising has paid for OTA for ages and still does. Hell
you even reverified that obvious fact with your previous and totally
irrelevant smart ass statement.



But the advertising has NOT paid for delivery of that programming over
privately owned media such as cable. THAT is what you pay extra for.
Are you really having that much trouble understanding this concept?


Why is the concept of advertisement funded delivery so hard for you to
grasp? Try rubbing two brain cells together for a moment. Maybe that will
help.


Advertising funded delivery does NOGT pay for delivery over cable or
satellite.

And I do not have an agenda. I just want to remind folks that they do have
an alternate choice. You OTOH seem to have some kind of bug up your ass.
And you still have not answered my question: Do you work for or own stock
in cable or satellite? Your silence on this equates to a "yes" AFAIAC.


No, but I can understand the concept of privately owned delivery
versus the airwaves that are publicly owned.
Thumper
If you manage to come up with some reasoning, I might be inclined to discuss
this with you further. But for right now you seem to be stuck on stupid.

**** you. You have a lot of nerve calling someone else stupid.
Thumper