Would You Choose Wireless Over Local TV?

Local TV stations had years to convert to HDTV. They were NOT charged for their new spectrum as were other services, such as cellular, etc. If some analog TV stations chose not to invest and change frequencies, that's their business decision, and we shouldn't cry any tears for them. Most TV stations in the US made the conversion as required by the FCC. Those which didn't will/should fall by the wayside. No sympathy from here.

One of these days the wireless spectrum will congest to the point of constipation and nobody will have access for anything. There is only so much bandwidth, period. Keep computers for computing and low-level communications, and leave the video stuff for legitimate TV.

Regards/J

If there ever was a Strictly Limited Resource treatment to something, that is the radio spectrum. Outside the globe spanning shortwaves, that is a fable and a farce. And no, I am not advocating various users stepping on other people's already thinly sliced allocation of the spectrum. During my adult life life I observed various groups attempts to grab at other's spectrum, as a primitive attempt to expand their interest at the expense of others.

Cellphones got other frequency bands as the old analog TV was disassembled. Even half of the high 470 MHz+ band was handed over. ENOUGH ALREADY. If you look into it, the real gains in cellphone thruput with real bandwith for the user comes from two factors already firmly in the hand of that industry. Those are modulation complexity with increased linearity. Those, hand in hand allow more information bits packed into the same original bandwith, and received by the customer. No radio band from somebody else was needed for this gain. Theoretically there is no limit to the gain this way. On the other hand, there is blood on the floor - so to speak, or maybe even literally(?) - where the new devices are developed. It is bloody not easy.

I have no patience with the lazy ones, government, or their protected ones.

ENOUGH ALREADY.

For me this brings up the more general question of what is any bandwidth being used for?

We've already got a glut of "providers" with, no doubt, others standing in line for space. And yet, how much of the information and/or communication bandwidth is being used for anything really important?

I get 200+ satellite channels on my TV. How many do I care enough about to check for their programming? Maybe 15-20. I've long wished TV could be had "a la carte." I'm paying to be sold to. And "news" media? That's a part-time job now. Mostly, news channels are for editorial comment and voyeuristic indulgences.

Similarly, how much of our communications "bandwidth" is just tweets, chit-chat, and idle conversation. When I see the technology being a factor for real social change in developed countries in the same way it was in Egypt, then I'll applaud it's use. Ironically, technology is being used more to monitor and control the masses more than it serves them.

So it depends on just how much these "local" TV stations are really serving a useful purpose locally. Local TV can be of service. But who owns most of them now? Our society is driven by media. And control of the media has become concentrated in a few "hands." Like a herd of cattle being bred as food, we are consumers first (as food; being profit) and foremost. Think of comments you hear people around you make. It generally is a parroting of what has been supplied in media -- a lot of times using the same phrasing. The Daily Show (Jon Stewart) makes this point about the media in general a lot. It all begins to appear as if no one can think for themselves. It isn't a stretch to compare the course we are on to the Eloi in the "The Time Machine," or the tragedy in Orwell's "Animal Farm," or...

Sadly, there have always been those who could see the dark side of what appears as good, but ultimately isn't -- fool's gold, in other words -- but despite their vision nothing stopped it from becoming a reality. Fool's gold usually only disappoints a few individuals. The potential tragedy of our current course would/will reach far beyond a few.

I love "Anonymous" filings. Local TV transmitters meaningless? Money controlling it? Let abolish it? Is it important at all?

What is ANY LOCAL CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION is worth to you? This clown want to give it away with an incoherent rant based on feverish imaginations.

Sorry, for the sane members. I do have opinions, but this is incoherence running rampant.

Egypt for example?!? What is he smoking?!? I do not even know, what THEY are smoking.

Sorry, leveles that you think my post was incoherent. Your response seemed that way to me. Your response implies a lack of understanding of the points I was presenting. I was taking a larger view rather than commenting on the loss of any one TV station. But I am glad that you, at least, enjoyed it being posted Anonymously.

So lets cut more to the chase in posting.

I am very much for local TV stations. But their content has been altered by ownership.

Is that clearer? (I don't smoke anything, but the air I'm breathing is certainly suspect.)

The ultimate goal appears to be the end of FREE TV. In the future, if you want to watch TV, you will have to pay a service that provides TV via cable or satelite.

Would You Choose Wireless Over Local TV?

Do you mean would I choose cable or satellite over free over-the-air broadcast?

I never have and probably never will. There isn't much worth watching these days. The best programs are 50 year old reruns! I very seldom rent a movie either. Most of them are no better. We seem to have lost the talent it takes to make good programming.

I think, The local stations and those above and beyond local have deteriorated, [messed in their own nest], to such a degree it really does not matter. Wireless over local is a joke...The local stations seems to be taking a Leno or Letterman approach to the news to draw attention of the vewers to no avail. Trying to be funny is not being funny. The programs are without substance and are 15 min. verses 45 min. advertisement. Why anyone would pay for this punishment is beyond me. I'm on local antenna and my set stays on mute 80% of the time. The three biggies seem to be headset on hireing men and women speed talkers who can't think faster than they try to talk. AND hire the female with the most schrill voice to push over a dumb Idea of the media or the Goverment who ever pays the most. These you wouldn't let inside your house and there was a time they would not have a job in the industry..You ask what I think, I don't think, I know, from a stop watch and a mute button.

I already have, well, at the present time I have both. Did have satelite but the provider kept increasing the cost until it became excessive so dropped it. Watch most television streaming over the web. There is very little television "aired" that has any appeal to my family. Sometimes wonder about those who decide what their station's programming should be, most of it is a waste of time, money and talent. That's how I feel anyway.