Eww.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Tim Ashman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tim@ashmans.net">tim@ashmans.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Friday 22 January 2010 07:51:09 am Brian Wood wrote:<br>
> On Friday 22 January 2010 08:42:24 am Devin Heitmueller wrote:<br>
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Colin McGregor <<a href="mailto:colin.mc151@gmail.com">colin.mc151@gmail.com</a>><br>
><br>
> wrote:<br>
> > > I am just north of the Canada-USA boarder, so, I admit that some of<br>
> > > the subtleties of US politics sometime escape me... So, could someone<br>
> > > explain to me a commercial that showed up LATE last evening on WGRZ<br>
> > > (Buffalo, NY) claiming that special interest groups were planning to<br>
> > > take away "Free Antenna TV", and the the viewers should contact<br>
> > > congress to stop this. The commercial was produced by the "National<br>
> > > Association of Broadcasters".<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I have real trouble seeing any government anywhere in the<br>
> > > industrialized world taking away over the air TV (would annoy too many<br>
> > > people). Further, the "National Association of Broadcasters" must have<br>
> > > some sort of agenda in all this, but at the moment I don't quite see<br>
> > > what it is.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > So, could someone explain to this Canadian what is REALLY going on<br>
> > > with this ad.?<br>
> ><br>
> > You can read the details in Ars Technica, but essentially the cell<br>
> > phone carriers are complaining that there is not enough spectrum to<br>
> > support all the users of newer smartphones like the iPhone, and they<br>
> > want the FCC to recover some of the spectrum that is currently<br>
> > allocated for digital TV and reallocate it for cell phone use. The<br>
> > assertion is that this means "taking away over-the-air tv", which may<br>
> > or may not be valid depending on how much of the spectrum in your area<br>
> > is in use.<br>
> ><br>
> > It's also worth noting that the NAB is a trade association<br>
> > representing the companies that were given free licenses to use the<br>
> > spectrum for TV in the first place, so they have consider bias in the<br>
> > matter.<br>
><br>
> The NAB's members are certainly not sterling here, they claim to operate in<br>
> the "public interest" (in fact, they are required by law to do so), while<br>
> they actually usurp a resource owned by "the people" for their private<br>
> benefit.<br>
><br>
> The situation with available spectrum for cell phones might be helped<br>
> considerably if the US did not have several competing and incompatible<br>
> systems all operating in their own spectrum space, it's like building one<br>
> set of roads for Fords, another for GM products etc., you would quickly run<br>
> out of space to build roads, and your trade group would start lobbying to<br>
> have houses condemned for additional road space.<br>
<br>
</div></div>This is exactly what I mean by the big business' in the US using congress to<br>
gain marketshare instead of innovation. You are correct if they four<br>
companies would just give up on this idea of lock in by technology and just<br>
move to world gsm a whole bunch of spectrum would suddenly become available<br>
that they already have access too.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
><br>
> > In reality, it is unlikely to happen.<br>
<br>
</div>Unlike you I do believe that is our crazy pay for access world this does have<br>
a chance.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
tim<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
mythtv-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>