- This topic has 53 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by FlyerInHi.
February 11, 2016 at 12:09 PM #794242bearishgurlParticipant
For now, my internet cable is strung up on poles and works just fine :=)[/quote]
Yeah, cox and time warner have been promising double the speed for free for more than 2 years now, but why should they if they have a captive audience?
In my area TWC went all digital TV, but so far no internet improvement. In the past slow internet for browsing was fine. We now need faster for steaming.
I think companies should be able to have variable pricing based on distance and distribution costs. More in line with real economics.[/quote]I got a letter from Cox last December that they were going all digital in the 3rd week of Feb (next week) in my area. It offered me one tiny 4″ box for free for one year for a secondary, older CRT TV in my home (there are still a lot of these around here due to a high senior-citizen population.) Instead, I just returned my advanced cable box to them over a month ago and no longer get hi-def svc. I suspect that after next week, I won’t get any channels at all. Cox will no longer pay a worker to climb up and down poles to turn on/off service or channels in individual houses. Everything will now be controlled by a box owned by Cox and that’s the way they like it :=0
I could care less. I have found that I can just wait 8 days (1 week and 1 day after the original broadcast) to watch my fav documentaries (20/20 or 60 mins) online on their respective network’s websites. I like this method better because I don’t have to watch the segments I’m not interested in OR the commercials, since both shows typically have 2-3 segments in their one-hour time slot. I won’t be signing back up for TV service because I don’t watch TV and my youngest kid (who was a heavy DVR user) is gone.
I’m happy with the “Preferred” speed of cable internet service.February 11, 2016 at 10:23 PM #794266
[quote=bearishgurl]In our case, these wild, starving coyotes have had to traverse 9 miles or more over/under 2-3 FREEWAYS, as well as thru large culverts and drainage canals (both dirt and concrete) to end up sprinting emaciated into downtown Chula Vista in “attack-mode search” of a random small dog or cat to “snack on” for their very survival.[/quote]Note that the coyotes were willing to travel from the wild into the city over 9 miles or more under 2-3 freeways… That means that food is easier to obtain in the city than in the wild. Coyotes will choose the easiest food. City food doesn’t run away as fast, not as smart about coyotes and doesn’t fight back. Coyotes can easily cover 9 miles, I have done an 11 mile one way, 22 mile circular trip through Penasquitos canyon(as the crow flies).. no real big deal.. so the trip would not make a coyote ’emaciated’.February 11, 2016 at 10:48 PM #794269
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]New developments (suburban or condo/apartment complexes ) are best to lay fiber.
No so much in rural areas where target shooting don’t bother the neighbors.[/quote]I can’t imagine that we’re going to get Scroogle Fibber anytime soon in (urban) dtn Chula Vista. We’ll be lucky to get buried SDGE cable in my lifetime, eliminating constant 6-8 hr power outages during high-usage A/C days.
For now, my internet cable is strung up on poles and works just fine :=)[/quote] We have internet through TWC, and were seeing basic cable because it was not scrambled (at the time, it is now). We are not running basic internet, so we are paying a bit for it. It is kind of irritating that TWC is charging for local channels. They claim they have to pay for it which kind of makes sense when you consider that TWC changes the commercials that are aired with the channel. But TWC does not have to change the channels, after which they would not be charged for the feed. TWC is trying to ‘both-end’ the deal. Changing the commercials to their sponsors, and then charging to view.
After our feed got scrambled, I was fiddling with the cable for one of the TVs and after a short calculation, found that a full wave antenna at 900Mhz is about 1 foot long. Just for the h**l of it, I had some ‘punch-down’ wire for type-66 telco blocks, so I stripped 1/2 and inch off a 6 inch long piece and just stuck it in a short piece of RG-6 cable connected to the antenna port of the TV and propped it vertically above the TV. I then set the TV to scan for channels and got 18 digital signals… including KPBS!! in high def. Some were weak, but several came in quite strong. The OTA signal looks sharper than TWC’s, so I suspect that TWC is down-compressing the signal, reducing effective resolution. The digital high def signals are sent at higher frequencies than the old VHF TV signals, so smaller antennas work. Most antennas you can buy are not true omni-directionals.
At this point, I have a bit of an ‘itch’ to build a small phased turnstile loop antenna.. (vertically stacked, phased evenly to flatten the reception pattern vertically, extend it horizontally).February 11, 2016 at 10:49 PM #794267
[quote=harvey][quote=ucodegen][quote=scaredyclassic]Wait, why is the epa “unconstitutional”?[/quote]
It has the potential to create and enforce laws extra-judicially and outside of the constitutionally stated process (laws are supposed to be written/enacted by Congress, signed by Pres, reviewed by Judicial). There is a somewhat accepted sidestep that Congress enacted the EPA, so it is now allowed, though still is a question whether the EPA can create laws in and of itself outside of Congress.[/quote]
The military has its own legal system, with courts, judges, prisons, and even the death sentence.
All because of a law passed by congress.
The EPA is no different. It was granted authority within a certain scope by congress. Congress can also take that authority away. Government wouldn’t work if congress had to approve every detail of every organization.[/quote]The issue is that congress may not have the authority to delegate lawmaking to the EPA. It changes the balance of power established by the constitution (which is also why the line item veto was shot down) Claiming that I am stating that Congress would then have to approve every detail is a bit of a straw-man argument. Only the environmental laws and how they are enforced would be covered by that issue, not day to day ops.February 12, 2016 at 5:13 PM #794317NotCrankyParticipant
Perhaps a point of interest?
I and mentioned on a thread that the Army Corps of Engineers was doing a survey on a little drainage ditch on my rural east county easement. It started because a belligerent neighbor claimed it was a vernal pond and put up barriers to protect it. He claimed that the Army Corp of Engineers had designated it a wetland. It’s just a ditch with a manmade berm in it that hold rain water for a little while after it rains. The Amry COrps had never heard of him or this ditch , it was on no register and nothing like it in the county is on any register of any kind of Jurisdiction in the County.
Anyway. ARCE was not big enough for the job of ruling whether this was “Waters of the United States”. Turns out they need to bring the EPA in on it too! I guess they don’t have really important planet , shipping related , or life saving stuff to do?
As I mentioned in the other post on this topic there must be hundreds of thousands if not millions of little erosion features like the one under scrutiny in San Diego County alone. If you put dirt on the low end of these ditches or anywhere along them for that matter at that point there would be standing water at times . Under no other circumstances would water be standing . It would only be running at a trickle during and for a few minutes after a strong rain fall. This is not a farming, manufacturing or place of any kind of business whatsoever that I am talking about.
Does that make them unconstitutional , I don’t know. But it makes them corrupt.
THis is the way these land and resource management groups do corruption the find someone having an obstacle or need that is blocked or can be block and they exploit it, just like the mordida system while they ignore many bigger things that can’t be exploited and meanwhile toxicity in the environment rolls on unchecked,people die, because those thing are not the overriding goal funding and growing the organization is .February 12, 2016 at 5:17 PM #794318spdrunParticipant
It’s well known that over-the-air HDTV has better definition than cable — cable is known to be lossily compressed.February 12, 2016 at 6:42 PM #794325
[quote=spdrun]It’s well known that over-the-air HDTV has better definition than cable — cable is known to be lossily compressed.[/quote] OTA transmission also uses a lossy compression algorithm too. Cable actually has more bandwidth than OTA and less interference. OTA HDTV is both better and worse quality compared to cable. The primary channel seems to be better quality, secondary channels seem to be worse. It also looks like the key frames (I-frame) of the video occurs less frequently in OTA than cable. This shows up as channel switching occurring slower on OTA compared to cable.February 14, 2016 at 10:49 PM #794339FlyerInHiGuest
About TV and government, TV manufacturers and streaming device manufacturers can track TV viewing habits and sell to advertisers (cable boxes cannot).
Why is the FCC not issuing new regulations to prohibit such behavior?February 20, 2016 at 10:22 AM #794559FlyerInHiGuest
I’m happy that consumers are finally going to be given a choice of TV cable boxes to use.
The markets are not that free… with government officials protecting their big corporate sponsors.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.