Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Modern UHF vs. classical UHF (Score 1) 80

by mmell (#47890449) Attached to: L.A. TV Stations Free Up Some Spectrum For Wireless Broadband
You're right, I misread the spec. However, they're still tending to favor those areas of bandwidth that are notably less efficient. While I don't have evidence to support this contention, I perceive that it is an intentional act designed to minimize OTA access to broadcast television, a cynical act designed to encourage or even force viewers to subscribe to cable or satellite services.

Comment: Re:Seconded! (Score 1) 80

by mmell (#47889565) Attached to: L.A. TV Stations Free Up Some Spectrum For Wireless Broadband
At the end of the day, all I know is that stations which once were viewable (some even perfect) under analog are no longer viewable under digital. Wrap all the sophistry you want around your arguments - viewable beats not viewable any day, and I've discovered that many previously viewable channels are no longer available to me as OTA. I need to pay for 'em now via the cable and satellite companies. I can't just hand a rabbit ears on the back of my set or go up on my roof and mount a VHF/UHF antenna.

Comment: They also use considerably higher frequencies. (Score 4, Interesting) 80

by mmell (#47889535) Attached to: L.A. TV Stations Free Up Some Spectrum For Wireless Broadband
VHF frequencies tended to flow around obstructions. UHF frequencies tended to be more "line of sight". Modern digital television is on even higher frequencies. Crunch the numbers - this means less coverage by FREE broadcast mechanisms and more incentive for consumers to pay for cable or satellite reception. "Broadcast" companies get a reliable revenue stream, cable and satellite companies get a de facto monopoly and the government gets another choke point on communication. Everyone wins!

Well, everyone except Joe Sixpack; but he's just an ignorant dolt anyhow (an insensitive clod?).

Comment: Re:Special pleading (Score 1) 104

by mmell (#47889469) Attached to: UK Ham Radio Reg Plans To Drop 15 min Callsign Interval and Allow Encryption
I'll go along with you this far - when a licensed broadcaster has their signal's integrity compromised by an individual broadcaster that's a violation of law. I agree completely with the concept of allocating bandwidth to commercial entities with the attendant regulation concerning what they're allowed to say and how.

Now, when I'm told that I may not use any bandwidth until I pay and submit to those same rules, that's censorship. Your "think of the children" argument doesn't hold water. They may have removed the knobs from my television, but there's still a button on the damned thing - unless it's 1984 and nobody told me.

Comment: Not in my personal experience. (Score 1) 80

by mmell (#47889373) Attached to: L.A. TV Stations Free Up Some Spectrum For Wireless Broadband
Stations which I used to consider viewable (even some which came in at 0 - -10dB of gain, which is perfect for analog) have disappeared outright, or become modern examples of "flickervision" under digital. Don't fool yourself - the broadcast networks would love to see everyone get their signals from cable or via an encrypted stream from satellite. Instead of the fluctuating income stream bounded by ratings and advertiser whims, they can rely on CableCo for a guaranteed, predictable, reliable revenue stream.

Comment: Seconded! (Score 2) 80

by mmell (#47889237) Attached to: L.A. TV Stations Free Up Some Spectrum For Wireless Broadband
Analog gets a little twitchy, you see snow (or ghosts). Sound has a little static to it. Your brain actually does a fantastic job of filtering these things out (like most people, you see and hear exactly what you want to see and hear).

Digital gets a little twitchy, you see a still frame (or nothing). Sound becomes silent. It's hard for your brain to actually filter out a blank screen and no audio.

Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life. -- Dave Butler

Working...