The End of an Era - After Almost a Century

[vitanola]

I understand your position, though it goes back to our differing philosophy on technology in general. I haven't relied on OTA television in 30 years. In my mind, if TV is worth having at all, it's worth having the best technology available, be that cable or satellite. I see no point to OTA TV. I wouldn't have it. I'd simply do without were that my only option. So it's not that I don't understand your position, it's that I disagree with your starting point in the first place.

Well, you see we enjoyed watching a few hours of television per week. The improved picture quality offered by the digital system was of little moment, as we had a small-screen set. I object most strenuously to having been forced to migrate from a satisfactory free service to an expensive paid service.

 

[LizzieMaine]

But hey, at least when there's no signal you get a nice, calming blue screen instead of that awful snow.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Well, you see we enjoyed watching a few hours of television per week. The improved picture quality offered by the digital system was of little moment, as we had a small-screen set. I object most strenuously to having been forced to migrate from a satisfactory free service to an expensive paid service.

Understood. I just disagree with your premise.

On the bright side, you've never had to suffer through an episode of Duck Dynasty or Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

 

[HudsonHawk]

But hey, at least when there's no signal you get a nice, calming blue screen instead of that awful snow.

One of the curses and blessings of digital is the all or nothing aspect. You either get 100% or 0%. Whether that's a blessing or a curse depends on your perspective. Like most things in the world.

 

[sheeplady]

I fear a day when everyone who can whines from their middle-class suburbanite-dwelling myopic focus, "Well, why don't they just buy cable TV and a cell phone???!??" with no understanding of how and why that may be logistically impossible for a great many people.

There was a time when we looked at issues like this as a country. I don't know how, when, or why it happened; but we have whole generations of people who have no comprehension of how the other half lives.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I fear a day when everyone who can whines from their middle-class suburbanite-dwelling myopic focus, "Well, why don't they just buy cable TV and a cell phone???!??" with no understanding of how and why that may be logistically impossible for a great many people.

There was a time when we looked at issues like this as a country. I don't know how, when, or why it happened; but we have whole generations of people who have no comprehension of how the other half lives.

If that's directed at me, you should know better. We've been down this road before. I've been without food, shelter, heat, clothing, etc. Having television of any kind is a luxury. A very big one. Decrying technological advancement as a symbol of elitism cuts no ice with me.

 

[vitanola]

Understood. I just disagree with your premise.

On the bright side, you've never had to suffer through an episode of Duck Dynasty or Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

My premise is that the airwaves are a scarce public resource which are to be allocated to private interests in exchange for their provision of a public service. The end of free over-the-air broadcasts for millions of homes hardly seems to be a good example of a public service.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My premise is that the airwaves are a scarce public resource which are to be allocated to private interests in exchange for their provision of a public service. The end of free over-the-air broadcasts for millions of homes hardly seems to be a good example of a public service.

That's pretty much it. It used to be that broadcasters were expected and required to serve "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity," and failure to do so to the satisfaction of public regulators was grounds for revocation of a broadcasting license.

 

[HudsonHawk]

My premise is that the airwaves are a scarce public resource which are to be allocated to private interests in exchange for their provision of a public service. The end of free over-the-air broadcasts for millions of homes hardly seems to be a good example of a public service.

Again...I understand. I disagree with your premise.

 

[sheeplady]

If that's directed at me, you should know better. We've been down this road before. I've been without food, shelter, heat, clothing, etc. Having television of any kind is a luxury. A very big one. Decrying technological advancement as a symbol of elitism cuts no ice with me.

Interestingly enough, it wasn't aimed at you. Hence why I didn't quote you.

 

[sheeplady]

That's pretty much it. It used to be that broadcasters were expected and required to serve "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity," and failure to do so to the satisfaction of public regulators was grounds for revocation of a broadcasting license.

And we also used to have a nation that kept the broadcasters and telecomm companies responsible. Instead we have a huge portion of people who sit around and say, "Just get a cell phone!" to people who fear their rural area will be abandoned when POTS is abandoned. Some of the plans I've read have proposed dropping 1% of telephone users. These users are described as being "overwhelmingly rural."

But we all know the generous cell phone companies will immediately snatch up this market and cover these very rural areas of society with cell towers. And if they don't, who cares about that 1%? Who cares about the USF? Paid 10,000 twenty years ago to get a telephone line run down your road? Sorry, we won't be maintaining that anymore.

It should at least be a goal for our society to make sure everyone can have an access point to telephone. A *telephone.* We're not talking television, we're not talking internet, we're talking a device that has been well established for almost a hundred years. Do we have to go backwards for the sake of new technologies by excluding some of the most vulnerable in our society? How is that progress? How is it that moving more packets is more important than including more people in our global economy?

Come on- we're talking TELEPHONE service here. I know the U.S. is a big country and all that. I know the infrastructure is aging. I know the technology is on it's way out. But we honestly can't come up with a plan that will cover 100% of the current telephone users with the new technology?

The truth is that these companies can cover all the current users. They just don't want to. So they're negotiating with the government to drop these old lines to rural areas which cut so deeply into their profit margin. It is a trade- and like any trade- these companies are only offering the trade because they think they'll benefit. And they'll get the support to drop these customers because, after all, a bunch of people will say, "Why don't these people just get a cell phone????!!!???" with no comprehension of what it is like to live in a rural place.

 

[sheeplady]

If that's directed at me, you should know better. We've been down this road before. I've been without food, shelter, heat, clothing, etc. Having television of any kind is a luxury. A very big one. Decrying technological advancement as a symbol of elitism cuts no ice with me.

So let me get this straight: you feel that dropping 1% or more of the current telephone customers (as has been proposed as part of the recent various initiatives) in the United States is advancement?

We're just going to have to disagree here then. I don't think that is advancement. I think that is exclusion. It might be technological progress, but it certainly isn't social progress.

 

[HudsonHawk]

So let me get this straight: you feel that dropping 1% or more of the current telephone customers (as has been proposed as part of the recent various initiatives) in the United States is advancement?

We're just going to have to disagree here then. I don't think that is advancement. I think that is exclusion. It might be technological progress, but it certainly isn't social progress.

First, I don't think it's agreed that a certain percentage of people will have to be dropped, which is my main objection to complaining about it before the effects are quantified. Secondly, I don't view telephone service as the same sort of inherent right that you do. I see it as a commercial enterprise, not as a government responsibility. But I understand we disagree on this.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Well it is a step up from having 'rabbit ears'..!!
HD

And it was definitely no fun being the one who had to hold the rabbit ears and assume strange positions.

[video=youtube;Sm3_qEMTdc4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm3_qEMTdc4[/video]

 

[sheeplady]

First, I don't think it's agreed that a certain percentage of people will have to be dropped, which is my main objection to complaining about it before the effects are quantified.

The vast majority of the proposals I've read in regards to expanding broadband service have stated that the most rural telephone lines would be dropped. Normally this is buried someplace in any article written about it. I believe the 1% statistic comes from AT&Ts 2012 proposal. Considering that AT&T has most of the most rural lines that is concerning to me. A company like AT&T would have to get permission to drop these lines from the U.S. government due to various regulations regarding access, hence it has been speculated (and I agree with this speculation) that AT&T is offering the guise of better technology as a trade off to dropping some of its most expensive lines to maintain. (Of course, there are obvious benefits to the new technology to AT&T or any company that has proposed this as well, but the dropping of rural users just sweetens the pot for the telecomm companies.)

The issue is not the technology- no one *has* to be dropped. My concern is far less about the technology itself than the fact that these initiatives are used to cover up other deals.

The issue is once these deals are made it will be too late to quantify the people getting dropped- they'll essentially be dropped from that point onward. Typically once a service is shut off it takes a lot more to get it restarted than to just keep it going.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The issue is once these deals are made it will be too late to quantify the people getting dropped- they'll essentially be dropped from that point onward. Typically once a service is shut off it takes a lot more to get it restarted than to just keep it going.

That's what worries me. In a lot of cases, it was well into the middle of the 20th century before a lot of these isolated points got wired for simple telephone service. Pulling those wires now and just leaving things at that will mean -- what? Another fifty years before any kind of replacement service is available? One big concern here is island towns -- we have many of these off the coast, served by underwater copper cables. Who's going to replace those with fiber optic lines?

Verizon pulled out of Maine several years ago because our state regulations forbade them from discontinuing copper-wire service. Another company has taken over that system and is maintaining it, which is one option. Another option would be for a public agency to take over an abandoned system, a TVA type of operation that will ensure at least a minimal level of service for isolated areas. But just letting the big boys cut the wires and walk away is not an option.

 

[sheeplady]

That's what worries me. In a lot of cases, it was well into the middle of the 20th century before a lot of these isolated points got wired for simple telephone service. Pulling those wires now and just leaving things at that will mean -- what? Another fifty years before any kind of replacement service is available? One big concern here is island towns -- we have many of these off the coast, served by underwater copper cables. Who's going to replace those with fiber optic lines?

I can remember as a kid being at an auction where a couple of adults were talking about trying to get enough people to opt in to get a line strung down their road. I knew where they lived and it wasn't as rural of a place as some places I knew, so I asked their kid if he was looking forward to having electric. The kid looks at me and says, "We're talking about getting telephone."

This was the early 1990s.

Do you think someplace that didn't get telephone until the 1990s is going to get fiber optic or have their lines cut?

And the market won't pick up the slack without gouging either. I have a friend who lives 600 feet from where the cable line ends on his road. He wants to get cable installed for the internet.
He called and asked the cable company: What do I have to do to get cable installed up to my house?
Answer: Pay us $10,000.
Him: What if I got 10 families together on the road? How much would it cost then?
Answer: $10,000 for each house.

So.... I really don't think another company is going to pick up the slack.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

"Advancement"

If that's directed at me, you should know better. We've been down this road before. I've been without food, shelter, heat, clothing, etc. Having television of any kind is a luxury. A very big one. Decrying technological advancement as a symbol of elitism cuts no ice with me.

I would rather get snowy Milwaukee stations, than none at all.

One of the curses and blessings of digital is the all or nothing aspect. You either get 100% or 0%. Whether that's a blessing or a curse depends on your perspective. Like most things in the world.

You talk about doing without, but sometimes, you sure come off snobby and holier-than-thou in your replies. Whether or not that's intentional, or something missed from the lack of inflection over the internet is anybody's guess.

I understand your position, though it goes back to our differing philosophy on technology in general. I haven't relied on OTA television in 30 years. In my mind, if TV is worth having at all, it's worth having the best technology available, be that cable or satellite. I see no point to OTA TV. I wouldn't have it. I'd simply do without were that my only option. So it's not that I don't understand your position, it's that I disagree with your starting point in the first place.

 

[HudsonHawk]

You talk about doing without, but sometimes, you sure come off snobby and holier-than-thou in your replies. Whether or not that's intentional, or something missed from the lack of inflection over the internet is anybody's guess.

Im sorry you feel that way about me. Though I honestly don't see what's snobby or holier than thou in preferring digital television.

 

[cchgn]

We've been living in the "rural"( does that even exist anymore?) and for the last few years the "rural" has been torn down and housing developments have sprung up. Those folks demand ( and the houses wouldn't get sold otherwise) cable, telephone and internet( which is on the phone line), so yes, they're taking down the old above ground lines and installing below ground cables. The "rural" that I imagine that they won't( like Easten Ky or WAY upstate NY), you have to pipe daylight into as well, so they're busy with that.


Btw, down here in hurricane land, we still get phone even when all other power is out, so yes, it's a big deal and frankly, we don't care if it's above ground on copper lines or below ground on fiber optics. Btw, folks must have forgot how often above ground lines were down due to storm debris or snow/ice.